The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking direction to the respondents to quash the Notice Inviting Tender for construction of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Sarv Samaj Manglik Bhawan.
Bhaskar Payashi, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition is filed not only in the larger interest of around 1500 students who are prosecuting their studies in government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School and in the interest of general public whose kids may come to same school for their studies and so also in the interest of welfare State also as the land belongs to School has been illegally allotted to the Nagar Panchayat, behind the back of Education Department or Principal of the School.
It is further submitted that the petition is directed against the illegal allotment of land earlier allotted to the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School , somewhere in the year 1955 and that too, contrary to law without seeking any permission from the School or Education Department of the State. The respondent-Collector has illegally allotted the land bearing admeasuring 0.73 acre to the Nagar Panchayat, Pendra (respondent No.6) for construction of a Community Hall. The land which has been illegally allotted behind the back of School is being used for the practical of Students of Agriculture Department. The said portion of the land contains around 30-40 trees of fruits including Mango, Gauva, Tamrind, Jamun etc. The respondent No.6 is acting like a businessman for earning money in the cost of education of students, against the interest of Govt. Multipurpose Higher Secondary School.
Payashi further submits that construction of Community Hall is also against the interest of 1500 students and of the School as the same would cause noise pollution, allowing the public to gather near Community Hall. The Government Multipurpose School is running in co- education and so also having Hostel Facility and construction and running of Community Hall would be detrimental to all students including kids of economically weaker section as the Atmanand English Medium School is also being run in same premises and around 1500 students are prosecuting their studies in 2 shifts of the school. Payashi further submits that prior to 1955 there was no School in Pendra, therefore, considering the difficulty faced by the local public, local residents donated land for the establishment of the School. Such land was earlier recorded in the name of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter same has been allotted in the name of Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Pendra. The land belonged to local residents who had donated the same for the welfare of the public at large for construction of a school and the same cannot be allowed for any other purpose than for what it was donated. The Nagar Panchayat Pendra has not planted a single tree in the last 10-15 years and on the other hand they are going to cut trees for construction of Community Hall which would be detrimental to the ecosystem of the area and adversely affect the Pollution Level.
On the other hand, Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the main ground which has been urged by the petitioners in the petition is that the alleged allotment of land in question to the Nagar Panchayat Pendra is liable to be quashed being illegal on the sole ground that before cancellation of allotment in favour of School, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Principal of the school and as per the provisions contained in the Land Revenue Code, the Collector has to obtain permission for review of its order before cancelling the allotment in favour of school from the learned Board of Revenue, but, the same has not been done and the respondent Nagar Panchayat is carrying out constructing of community hall over the land illegally allotted to it dehors provisions of applicable for allotment of land. No right is demonstrated by the present petitioners for the enforcement of which a writ may be issued by this Hon’ble Court. The present petition is not maintainable and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that the impugned allotment order passed by the Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi is an appealable order as provided under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Divisional commissioner and without availing the said statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner has directly approached the Court by way of filing the appeal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that the PIL has been filed by the petitioners among whom petitioner No. 1 belongs to legal profession and is well aware of the remedies available to him for approaching the appropriate Court/forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. In the present case, the Court was not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in the petition.
From perusal of the return filed by the State as well as the respondents No. 6 and 7, the Court noted that after following the due process of law, the land in question has been allotted for construction of a Community Hall. Construction of the community Hall is also one of the facilities which the State or the local administration provides to the public at large which is used for various purposes and the same cannot be treated to be one which is a commercial activity or unproductive activity. The distance of the school and the community hall is quite reasonable and would not cause any hindrance in any manner to the School or the students. Even otherwise, the allotment order passed by the Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi is an appealable order under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Divisional Commissioner which has not been availed of by the petitioners and the petitioners have directly approached the Court by way of filing the present appeal.
The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate forum as provided under the law, if so advised.