Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaipur Development Authority vs J D A Appe Tribunal And Ors on 1 August, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12848/2010
Major Narpat Singh Son of Shri Shyam Singh, Resident of E-17,
Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, R.K.Vyas
Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
2. Mahesh Nagar Jan Seva Samiti, Through Senior President
Mr.Mool Chand Sharma S/o Shri Gopi Ram Sharma Mahrishi,
House No.23, Bank Colony, Mahesh Nagar Extension, B Mehrishi
Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4476/2008
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur through its Commissioner,
Indra Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
----Non-petitioner
2. Major Narpat Singh Son of Shri Shyam Singh, Resident of E-
17, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Kesar Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh,
4. Bhagwati Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh,
5. Shakti Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh,
6. Sajjan Kanwar D/o Shri Shyam Singh,
All Residents of Gopalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, C/o Shri Narpat
Singh, E-17, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
7.Mahesh Nagar Jan Seva Samiti, Through Senior President
Mr.Mool Chand Sharma S/o Shri Gopi Ram Sharma Mahrishi,
House No.23, Bank Colony, Mahesh Nagar Extension, B Mehrishi
Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(2 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mudit Singhvi, Adv. for Mr.Vineet
Mehta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Shalini Sheoran, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
01/08/2022
Matter comes up on misc. application No.1/2022 dated
20.05.2022 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of necessary directions against
the respondents for not constructing/raising/erecting the statue of
any public/religious figure or to convert the land under dispute as
a public monument or public place of larger public interest.
The petitioner further prays for allowing them to
repair/renovate of the Hanuman Ji/Balaji Temple situated on the
said disputed land at the cost of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present
writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 10.08.2010 passed by the JDA Tribunal; for quashing the
notice dated 09.04.2010 issued by the respondents-JDA under
Section 72 of the JDA Act; and further prayer has been made to
set aside the proceedings of taking possession of the disputed
land admeasuring 2 Bighas 13 Biswas identified as Khasra No.170
and 171 (as per settlement survey of 1992) or Khasra No.189 (as
per settlement survey of 1970). The petitioner further wants
restoration of possession of the said land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially
when the writ petition was filed, this Court on 27.09.2011 had
passed an order on stay application and the Court had observed
that no third party right was to be created and the land in
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(3 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
question was to remain in facility area and if any development was
to be undertaken by the JDA pendete lis, it was to be at the risk
and peril of the JDA and no right was to be conferred upon either
of the parties and further any development, which was to take
place, was to the subject to final outcome of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
necessity of filing misc. application has arisen as respondent-JDA
started constructing a public monument of Dr.Bheem Rao
Ambedkar over the disputed land and which was otherwise used
merely as the garden/park (facility area).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that creation of
of public monument and installation of a statue of a public figure,
would create various problems to the public in the said land and
as such, if such permission is granted to the JDA, it would be
impossible for the JDA to restore the land back to the petitioner
and further it will be against public spirit to have the statue/
monument shifted elsewhere at a later date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
installation/erection of any statue in public place is prohibited by
the Apex Court while passing the order in Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No.8519/2006 (Union of India Vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors.) dated 18.01.2013.
Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court on
18.01.2013 had directed the State Governments not to grant any
permission for installation of any statue or construction of any
structure in public roads, pavement, sideways and other public
utility places.
Learned counsel submitted that the said order of the Apex
Court was made applicable to the State of Gujarat and to all other
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(4 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
States and the Union Territories and the Chief
Administrator/Secretary was to ensure compliance of the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra) have been continued
from time to time by the Apex Court and the matter is still sub-
judice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain
other States, which permitted erection of statue in public places
have not been permitted by different High Courts and as such
counsel refers to a judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court
in Writ petition No.49960/2017 (Akhila Bharat Kshatriya
Mahasabha and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.)
decided on 07.09.2021.
Learned counsel also refers to a judgment passed by the
Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) in Writ Petition
No.24323/2019 (PIL) (Greeshm Jain Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) decided on 03.03.2022, whereby
directions of the Apex Court has been reiterated and a statue of
the Ex-Chief Minister of the State, was directed to be removed
from the site, which was of public utility.
Learned counsel, on the strength of the said judgments,
submitted that this Court is required to give suitable direction to
the respondents for not permitting any erection of statue in the
public utility area.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after reply
filed by the respondents-JDA, it has come on record that one
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(5 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
statue of Dr.Bheem Rao Ambedkar has been installed on
28.05.2022 by some 'Samagra Sangh Sewa Samiti'.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has filed
rejoinder to the reply and the petitioner has placed on record fact
of pedestal constructed by the JDA and one statue has been
installed on the platform, however, the statue is not unveiled so
far and is still covered.
Learned counsel submitted that at least this Court may give
direction to the respondent-JDA of not permitting any person to
unveil the statue, which has wrongly been erected.
Learned counsel for the respondents Ms.Shailini Sheoran
appearing on behalf of the JDA submitted that the interim
direction has already been passed by this Court on 27.09.2011
and the respondents-JDA was directed to undertake development
of the area concerned and as such, the petitioner cannot be
allowed to plead before this Court that the JDA should not make
use of the land for the public purpose.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the prayer sought by the petitioner in the misc. application itself is
contradictory, as on the one hand, the petitioner seeks restraint of
constructing/raising/erecting any statue of any public/religious
figure and on the other hand, the petitioner seeks permission from
the Court for repairing/renovation of a religious temple.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had
also filed application earlier before this Court seeking permission
to re-install the idol in the temple and this court by order dated
09.03.2015 declined to grant such prayer made by the petitioner
in the misc. application at the interlocutory stage.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(6 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a
high level meeting was convened and proceedings was drawn on
18.02.2020 and after due permission NOC and sanction was
issued on 03.06.2020 and accordingly in the facility area, a statue
of Dr.Bheem Rao Ambedkar was installed on 28.05.2022 and JDA
had only constructed the pedestal in the facility area in accordance
with order dated 01.03.1997 issued by the State Government and
as such, no violation has taken place in the present case and JDA,
as per decision taken by the Members of the High Level meeting,
decided to construct the pedestal.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the application filed by the petitioner has become infructuous and
as such, statue has already been installed by 'Samagra Sangh
Sewa Samiti' and as such, this Court may not pass any order on
the misc. application.
Learned counsel further submitted that the directions which
have been given by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. State of Gujarat and others (Supra) do not cover the public
places where statue of renowned persons are erected and as such,
the Apex Court has only restrained the State Governments to
install statue of political leaders.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court has
time and again reviewed the directions which were initially issued
on 18.01.2013 and as such, the prayer made by the petitioner
may not be considered by this Court.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that though interim order was passed by this
Court on 27.09.2011, however, direction was only to permit the
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(7 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
JDA to undertake the development work in the park at their own
cost and peril.
This Court further finds that as such installation/erection of
statue in public utility area or public facility area, has not been
permitted by the Apex Court and all the States are bound to follow
the direction given by the Apex Court and the Chief Secretary is
required to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Apex
Court.
This Court finds that the State of Rajasthan was also present
to represent its interest when order dated 18.01.2013 was passed
by the Apex Court.
This Court finds that the direction passed by the Apex Court
has also been followed by the other States and as such, whenever
violation of direction of the Apex Court has come to notice of the
different High Courts, necessary orders have been issued from
time to time by different High Courts including the High Courts of
Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.
This Court finds that in the present case, the pedestal is said
to have been constructed by the JDA and some Society is said to
have installed the statue on the said pedestal.
This Court finds that the present misc. application was filed
before this Court on 20.05.2022 and the respondent-JDA has
pleaded that statue was installed on 28.05.2022 by some
Samagra Sangh Sewa Samiti.
This Court finds from perusal of the photographs have been
placed on record, as Annex-7 with the rejoinder, that the statue is
still covered and same has not been unveiled so far.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM)
(8 of 8) [CW-12848/2010]
The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that
the directions issued by the Apex Court may not apply in the
present facts of the case, this Court is afraid to accept submission
of learned counsel for the respondents.
This Court finds that pedestal which has already been constructed by the JDA may not be demolished at present, however, the respondents-JDA is directed to maintain the statue in covered position and further this Court directs that no function be permitted for unveiling the statue which has already been said to be installed.
The misc. application accordingly stands disposed of. The JDA Officials will ensure compliance of this order and it would be their personal responsibility that the order passed by this Court is not flouted by any person.
This Court finds that the writ petition can be decided finally at orders stage.
List the matter on 27.09.2022 for final disposal at orders stage.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J Monika/Himanshu Soni/58-59 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:04:01 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)