Sunil Kumar And Others vs Meharban And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The delay of 12 days, in preferring the appeal, is not opposed by Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner; and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred by respondents 4 to 9 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 786 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019. The first respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to complete construction of the Computer Science Corporation Centre at Gram Khataka, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar in accordance with law; and restrain the private respondents from interfering in the working of the Government for raising construction of Computer Science Corporation Centre.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has noted the submission urged on behalf of the first respondent-writ petitioner that, because of interference by a local MLA and the private respondents, construction of a Computer Science Centre at Gram Khataka was affected; no action was being taken by the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate despite a request being made by the Gram Sabha, by its letter dated 07.03.2019, to provide police protection for peaceful construction of the Computer Science Centre; based on the said letter police protection was provided from 12.03.2019 to 13.03.2019; and because of the hindrance of the MLA, and the other private respondents, construction was again stopped.

The learned Single Judge, thereafter, recorded the submission urged on behalf of the State Government that, if the first respondent-writ petitioner moved a fresh representation before the District Magistrate for providing adequate police force for peaceful construction of the Computer Science Centre at Gram Khataka, the District Magistrate would take an appropriate decision, on the representation of the first respondent-writ petitioner, within the next one week.

In view of the submission urged on behalf of the first respondent-writ petitioner, that the writ petition be disposed of recording the statement of the learned Brief Holder appearing for the State Government, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition.

Respondents 4 to 9 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 786 of 2019 have now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that the land, on which the Computer Science Centre is now sought to be estabilshed, belongs to the Gram Sabha, and has been used for the past several years for the purpose of conducting Holi festivities; this land is adjacent to the Temple which was constructed on the land belonging to the Gram Sabha, with the oral permission of the Gram Pradhan; and, while the Gram Sabha is free to construct a Computer Science Centre anywhere else, its construction on the subject land would cause hindrance to religious festivities being carried on at the site for the past several years.

It is not even disputed before us, either by Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, or by Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government or even by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, that the subject land, on which the Computer Science Centre is sought to be established, is land belonging to the Gram Sabha. It does not also appear to be in dispute that the Gram Sabha has resolved to construct a Computer Science Centre on the subject land.

It is thus evident that the appellants herein now seek to restrain the Gram Sabha, from establishing a Computer Science Centre on its own land, on the ground that its construction, though within the limits of Gram Sabha land, is being raised on land adjacent to which a Temple has been constructed; and this would cause needless hindrance to religious festivities. As the entire land, including the land on which the authorities have constructed the Computer Science Centre, belongs to the Gram Sabha and, in the absence of any evidence to show that the said land was transferred by the Gram Sabha to the Temple authorities by way of a registered sale deed or a registered lease deed, no right accrues in favour of the appellants herein to claim that the Computer Science Centre should not be established on the land belonging to the Gram Sabha. In any event all that the learned Single has directed is that the first respondent-writ petitioner's representation be considered by the District Magistrate.

The jurisdiction which this Court exercises in an intra-Court appeal is extremely limited. It is only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality would interference be justified. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal.

The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.