Rajasthan High Court Over Beautification Of City & Roads’ Expansion
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to plant ten shady plants for every removed tree due to beautification of city and expansion of roads.
The Jaipur Bench was dealing with a bunch of Writ Petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the State authorities.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “While carrying out development work for beautification of the city and expansion of roads in the larger public interest, the respondents must ensure that if trees or plants need to be removed, they first count and document the number of such affected trees and plants. Subsequently, they should plant trees ten times of the number in the nearby public areas close to the city. This condition is imposed in greater public interest.”
The Bench remarked that planting trees and plants is an initiative that is appropriate, as thriving trees, whether for decades or centuries, provide continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community.
“Future generations will enjoy a cleaner, fresher, and oxygen-rich environment as a result thereof”, it added.
Advocate Ashish Sharma represented the Petitioners while AAG G.S. Gill represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Writ Petitions were filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents for declaring the action of the Respondents, in attempting to demolish the properties of the Petitioners for the purpose of widening the road without following the due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconsensual, and against the law and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice.
A challenge was led to the impugned action of the Respondents by which the demolition drive, targeting structures constructed by the Petitioners, was conducted by the Respondents. The counsel submitted that the Petitioners were the lawful occupants of the property. It was alleged that the Respondents started the demolition drive in the garb of extending the width of the road.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the submissions made by the parties, emphasised, “In a democratic set-up governed by the Rule of Law, the State can not deprive its citizens from their properties without following the due process of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2011 (10) SCC 404 has held that right to property is now considered to be a human right, which includes right to shelter. Forceful dispossession of a person from his private property, without following the due process of law, was held to be violative of Article 301-A of the Constitution of India.”
The Court noted that the principles enshrined in Magna Carta such as Rule of Law and protection of individual’s rights, continue to influence the legal system today and this civilizational journey has since then found its reflection in Article 21 of the Constitution which commands that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the city’s development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed without obstruction. However, it is equally essential to ensure that property owners whose assets are subject to demolition are given a fair hearing. Accordingly, a Committee is required to be constituted to examine each case and redress the grievances of the petitioners. If such a Committee comes to the conclusion that any individual is having a valid title over his/her property and still his /her property is required for expansion of the width of the road, in public interest, then decision must be taken at appropriate level to compensate such person(s)”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that it is the right time and high time that proceedings should be brought to a logical conclusion, one way or the other. It also said that the development and expansion work of roads cannot be allowed to remain stalled for indefinite period and the same is required to be done in larger public interest as earliest as possible.
“The respondents may proceed ahead with aforesaid purpose, after following due process of law and making compliance of the direction of this Court”, it added.
Directions
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
(a) The Respondents shall constitute a committee within fifteen days from today and the Petitioners shall submit their representations and objections, regarding their rights and title over the premises/lands in question, to the said Committee within fifteen days thereafter.
(b) The Committee shall provide an opportunity of hearing to all the Petitioners and shall decide their representations and objections strictly in accordance with law, by passing reasoned and speaking orders in each individual case.
(c) In case, the Committee concludes that any Petitioner is in possession of the premises, based on the documents establishing his/her valid title, and such premises are required for expansion of road, then adequate compensation shall be awarded to him/her, at the appropriate level, in accordance with the prevailing DLC rates and in the alternative, he/she may be allotted, land as per his/her entitlement, under any applicable government scheme.
(d) In the cases, where no objections are received, the Respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the law.
(e) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Respondents shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance.
(f) If, during the course of expansion or construction of the road, plants or trees are required to be removed then the Respondents are directed to count such trees/plants and prepare an inventory. For every removed tree or plant, the Respondents shall plant ten shady plants in the close vicinity and nearby public area and shall submit a report in this regard to the Court.
(g) After the representations and objections have been decided, the Respondents shall be free to proceed with the construction of road, as per the Master Plan 2011–2031, provided that a minimum of fifteen days has elapsed, since the issuance of the respective orders on the Petitioners’ representations and objections.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and directed the Respondents to comply with the Order within three months.
Cause Title- Gyanchand Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:21549)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ashish Sharma, Mukul Sharma, Lipi Garg, Sidharth Bapna, Hemant Sharma, Ajay Gupta, Sampti Sharma, Pramod Kumar Bansal, Ranvijay Singh, Jitendra Mitrucka, Harshit Sharma, Mishra Naveen Chandra, and Mukesh Kr. Meena.
Respondents: AAG G.S. Gill, Asstt. G.C. S.P.S. Rajawat, Advocates Manoj Kumar, and Anima Jain.
