Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Singh & Anr vs State & Ors on 17 September, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10770/2013
Devi Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 17/09/2013
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10770/2013
Devi Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 17th September, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. The petitioners, Devi Singh and Ram Singh, sons of late Sh. Megh Singh, have approached this Court by way of present writ petition against the Resolution passed by the respondent- Municipal Council, Barmer, on 21.03.2013 for naming the new Roadways Bus Stand constructed in the name of late Sh. Virdhi Chand Jain, Former Member of Parliament of Barmer. The said decision was taken by majority of 20 : 14 as Resolution No.1 on 21.03.2013.
2. The petitioners have come with the case that the land in question on which the said new bus stand has been constructed, was surrendered and donated by their father , late Sh. Megh Singh, way back in the year 1973 in favour of Municipal Council, Barmer, and mutation entries in the name of Municipal Council, Barmer, were made by the revenue authorities for the said land under the order of the District Collector, Barmer, vide Order No. 4140 dated 19.12.1973.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10770/2013 Devi Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 17/09/2013 2/4
3. The petitioners have further submitted that under the orders of the District Collector, on half portion of the land measuring 13 Bigha, the State Government has already constructed a school, which is named as 'Mallinath Pant Shikshan Sansthan', whereas on the remaining half portion, on which the new bus stand has been constructed, in that regard, the said resolution has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, fairly admitted that there was no condition or stipulation in the surrender document the land by their father late Sh. Megh Singh S/o Pratap Singh to the effect that his name would be put on any public property constructed thereon. However, he submits that the respondent-Municipal Council, Barmer, ought to considered the naming of the said bus stand in the name of their late father Sh. Megh Singh having regard to the fact that the land was donated by their father in the year 1973 at free of cost.
4. Mr. Mukesh Rajpuorhit, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the said resolution is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of any stipulation or condition in the surrender of the land, though no such written document has been placed on record by the petitioners before this Court, and the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such condition in writing fur such the surrender that the name of their father late Sh. Megh Singh, would be used in any public property created over the said land donated by their father, the Resolution S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10770/2013 Devi Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 17/09/2013 3/4 passed by the respondent- Municipal Council, Barmer, by a majority, appears to be a democratic decision, which cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction.
6. The school constructed on the remaining half portion of the land, has already been named as 'Mallinath Pant Shikshan Sansthan', and thus both the institutions, created over the land donated by their father, late Sh. Megh Singh, already bear such name of a particular person.
7. Further, the provisions of Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act provide for State Government to exercise the revisional powers to examine the legality and propriety of the any order or resolution passed by the Municipalities in the State. The said provision, is quoted herein below, for ready reference: -
"S. 327. Power to call for records. (1) The State Government or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government, may, for the purpose of being satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order or resolution passed or purporting to have been passed, under this Act by or on behalf of a Municipality, its Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, any member or officer, call for the relevant record, and may, in doing so, direct that pending the examination of such record, such order or resolution shall be kept in abeyance and no action in furtherance thereof shall b taken until such examination by the State Govt. or by the officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government and the passing of order under sub-section (2).
(2) On examining the record the State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10770/2013 Devi Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 17/09/2013 4/4 Government or the officer authorized as aforesaid may rescind, reverse or modify such order or resolution and the order of State Government or the officer authorized as aforesaid shall be final and binding on the Municipality."
8. There is no material before this Court to quash the said resolution or decision of the respondent- Municipal Council, Barmer, and in view of the fact that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners by way of revisional jurisdiction before the State Government, or even by making a representation to the competent authority of the State Government, namely, the Secretary of the Local-Self Government Department, the writ jurisdiction in the present case cannot be invoked.
9. It is for the concerned Secretary or the competent authority in the State Government to consider the said request of the petitioners and it definitely does not lie with this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction for this purpose. It would have been best and most appropriate if the members of the Municipal Council, Barmer, could consider the said proposal of the petitioners, but a valid Resolution having already been passed by majority, it can now only be left for the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
47