BALTEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed by as many as twelve residents of Pilibanga township of district Hanumangarh with the prayer that the respondents be directed to remove illegal encroachments and unauthorized constructions raised by those mentioned in Annexure P/27 in the middle of the Kharlia Road and Nehru Dharamshala Road as shown in the enclosed map of the Pilibanga Agriculture Marketing Yard/shopping Area. It has been asserted in the writ petition that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga set up an agricultural marketing yard ( for short " the Yard") as per the plan approved by the Chief Town Planner-cum-Architectural Adviser of the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The plan of the yard was approved in the year 1964 according to which sufficiently wide public roads were left open. One such road which was originally named as Hospital Road has now come to be known as Kharlia Road. THIS road starts from National Highway and while cutting across the yard, it runs upto village Kharlia. Apart from 80 feet wide road, 40 feet wide land alongside this road was left open for parking purposes. Thus total width of the land covered by road and parking slot was proposed to be 120 fts. Apart from the site plan of the new yard (Annexure P/1) for indicating the position of Kharlia Road, the petitioners have placed on record site plan of the old yard also to show location of Nehru Dharamshala Road as Annexure P/2.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioners is that the large number of traders/others have made encroachment in the middle of the Kharlia Road within 80 feet area of the land left for road thereby reducing width of the road to just 55 feet. It is stated that Kharlia road, being the main road of the yard, is very strategic on account of its location because on its both sides are located major shops of this grain market. In view of its importance, 40 feet wide land was deliberately left open for the purpose of parking. Those who have encroached upon part of this road have constructed shops mostly in the size of 10' x 16'. Farmers from the surrounding villages of the mandi and local residents of Pilibanga made number of complaints to the authorities for removing the encroachments from Kharlia Road. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat , Sarawanwala also submitted written complaint to the District Collector, Hanumangarh on 20. 11. 2005 against such illegal encroachments. Similarly, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat , Likhmisar has also submitted written complaint on 20. 11. 2005 to District Collector for removing these illegal encroachments/constructions from the middle of the Kharlia Road. Large number of residents of Pilibanga also made complaints regarding these encroachments. It was on account of so much persuasion that the municipal authorities took initiatives for removing illegal constructions/encroachments and proceeded to demolish such illegally constructed shops. Suddenly however the petitioners were shocked to learn that the Municipal Board instead of removing the encroachments has permitted the encroachers to raise new shops after leaving 65 feet wide area for the road. They have been permitted to raise construction of the shops in the size of 8' x 10' ostensibly to reduce the extent of encroachment as earlier their construction was to the extent of 10' x 16'. The Municipal Board has taken a decision to regularize such illegal constructions made in the middle of the road even though it had earlier demolished such illegal shops in the month of November, 2005. Surprisingly, the Municipal Board in its meeting held on 21. 11. 2005 vide resolution no. 2 and 8 decided to regularize such illegal constructions. A copy of the proceedings of the Board dated 21. 11. 2005 has been placed on record. The Municipal Board not only decided to regularize the illegal constructions but also permitted such encroachers to raise new constructions in the middle of the road. One of the encroachers, namely Shri Premchand Nahta filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (J. D.) , Pilibanga in which the trial Court appointed a Commissioner to submit the exact status report of the Kharlia Road. The report submitted by the Commissioner to the said Court has been placed on record of the present petition. Other residents of the yard also complained to the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government on 21. 12. 2005 for removing illegal constructions on the road and maintain the roads as per the master plan. It has been submitted that apart from Kharlia Road, the original width of Nehru Dharamshala Road in the old yard was 50 feet whereas the encroachments have been made on that road upto the extent of 15 feet and practically the width of the road has been reduced to only 35 feet. CONTENTION of the petitioners is that the Municipal Board is an active collaborator in encouraging illegal encroachments and illegal constructions inasmuch as the Board has itself invited tenders for allotting the work of construction of wall in the middle of the road. A copy of the work order dated 12. 12. 2005 inviting tenders has been placed on record to substantiate this. The petitioners have placed on record photographs of the road in question which clearly indicate construction of a fresh wall in the middle of the road. The petitioners have explained with the help of site plans of the new yard and the old yard as to how important these roads are to these yards and surrounding localities and in what manner constructions are being permitted to be raised by the encroachers. It has been alleged that the functionaries of the Municipal Board are hand in gloves with the illegal occupants of the public land and have taken no steps to prevent illegal encroachments. Similarly, it has been asserted that illegal encroachments have been made on Nehru Dharamshala Road as well. The photographs showing such illegal constructions have also been placed on record. In spite of the fact that the petitioners made number of representations to the respondents one after the other, no action has been taken by the Municipal Board against such illegal encroachments. The respondents are rather proceeding to regularize such illegal encroachments. It has therefore been argued that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayer extracted above.

(3.) IT appears from the record that the injunction suit was filed before the Munsif Magistrate, Pilibanga which was decreed by that Court on 3. 2. 1993. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti filed an appeal there against before the Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh who by his order dated 12. 2. 1996 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Pilibanga and allowed the appeal thereby reserving the order of injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff union. A writ petition, being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2088/96, was filed against both the aforesaid judgments by Tehbazari Mandi Union, Pilibanga and others. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12. 7. 1996 dismissed the writ petition holding that writ petition was not maintainable against the aforesaid judgments. While dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, the learned single Judge permitted the petitioners therein to file second appeal and directed that the respondents not to interfere with the business activities of the members of the petitioner union for a period of two months only. IT was directed that after expiry of two months' period, the ad interim order would come to an end. IT was thereafter that Tehbazari Mandi Union filed the aforesaid second appeal before this Court on 17. 7. 1996. In that second appeal, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25. 10. 1996 which was extended from time to time and lastly it was confirmed by order dated 3. 2. 1997.