High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 10 RAJ CK 0019

Shri Kshemankari Mateshwari Trust vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 3 October 2016 · Citation: (2016) 4 WLN 488

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Govind Mathur and Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 427 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 274 words
1.

By the order dated 04.03.2016, learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition giving challenge to the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Collector, Jalore making allotment of land in favour of Department of Art, History and Archaeology for establishing a Panorama of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta.

2.

The case of the appellant-petitioner before learned Single bench was that the land surrounding the temple of Shri Kshemankari Mateshwari Trust is kept open for tree plantation and as such, that could have not been allotted for any other purpose.

3.

Learned Single Bench noticed that the land was allotted by the Collector Jalore as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Government Agricultural Land for Construction of Building for Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, Dharmshalas and Public Use) Rules, 1963 and that does not suffer from any illegality.

4.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel is that under the Rules of 1963, the land which is already under public use could have not been allotted for any other purpose.

5.

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Collector, Jalore under the order impugned allotted a small piece of land with reasonable conditions for establishing a Panorama of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta in their own town. The establishment of Panorama itself is in public interest and comes within the scope of public use and as such, the allotment under the Rules of 1963 is permissible. We do not find any justification to question such allotment merely on the count that the land in question is presently used by the temple trust.

6.

The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.