- (1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue any formal notice to the respondents.
(2.) THE pleaded version of the petitioner, in short, is that his father being persuaded by the District Administration of Nagaur, set apart and placed an area of his land measuring 5545 bighas with the clear understanding that the same would be used only for the purposes of grazing of cows and maintenance of gaushalas. The District Administration though had the said land at its disposal, it did not take any step to develop the same for grazing cows. This has been, according to the petitioner, since the year 1955. He has alleged that in the recent past, he came to learn that instead, the District Administration has allowed various persons to encroach upon the land and that various Government offices and buildings have been permitted to be constructed thereon. He has averred that on 16.9.2010, he submitted a representation to the District Administration, Nagaur raising objection to the effect that though the District Administration was aware of the specific purpose for which the land has been laid at its disposal by his father, it had been allowing unscrupulous persons to trespass on it and further, has allotted the land to the various Government departments to raise constructions. Thereby, the petitioner made a request to the State-authorities to remove the encroachments and even offered to develop himself a public park and a grazing ground at his own cost. He also submitted a representation before the Collector, Nagaur for restoring the land to him so as to enable him to set up an old age home. As according to the petitioner, the State authorities have not only remained wholly inactive, but also indifferent to the philanthropic purpose for which the land his father had parted with, he has approached this Court praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to use the land for the purposes of grazing cows and for developing a public park and in case they are not willing to do so, to allow him to develop a public park at his own cost. A direction for removal of encroachments on the land has also been sought for. Upon hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, we are of the view that no intervention is called for. Not only the issue sought to be raised in the instant petition is apparently stale, the petition suffers from the gross inaction and laches on the part of the petitioner. The documents furnished do not even prima facie support his contention that his father was the owner of the land in question and had in-fact relinquished the same in favour of the State Government for the purposes of developing a grazing ground thereon. The copy of the Jamabandi in particular annexed with the writ petition as well does not endorse this plea. The averments as a whole, in our comprehension, also do not disclose any public cause for espousal whereof a public interest litigation in law is contemplated.
(3.) ON a cumulative consideration of all above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. It is, thus, rejected.;