SINGH, CJ. - (1.) THE only question, which presently requires determination, is whether the State can retain the three buildings constructed over the land allotted to the High Court, in which, the offices of the Director Local Bodies; Director Social Welfare; and, the Public Works Department are being run. THE Government of Rajasthan had appointed a committee in July 1954, for advising it on the question of allotment of the site for the erection of the building for the High Court Bench at Jaipur. THE Committee had selected the land to the sought of the Secretariat building. Out of the total area of 30 bighas, 17. 5 bighas belonged to the Maharaja of Jaipur and this was part of the covenant land. THE Maharaja agreed to part with the land on the basis of the proposals of the Government for the exchange of the aforesaid land, with that of the land lying behind the Viman Bhawan. THE Maharaja had expressed his willingness for the exchange of the land through the letter of Rao Chandrapal Singh, Controller of the Private Properties of the Maharaja of Jaipur dated May 01, 1955. By letter dated May 23, 1956, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Central Administrative Department `c', requested the Government of India for according approval to the proposed exchange of the land. THE letter also advised the Government of India to amend the inventory of the private properties of the Maharaja of Jaipur. In response, the Government of India signified its no-objection by the letter of the Under secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated June 01, 1956, addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. THE Government of India also amended the inventory of the private properties of the Maharaja of Jaipur accordingly. After the exchange a total of 30 bighas of land was allotted for the construction of the High Court building at Jaipur. This is evident from the Khasra-Girdawari of Samvat- 2056, corresponding to the English Calendar year 1958. THE construction of the High Court building was commenced in the year 1957 and the same was completed in the year 1959. In the meanwhile, a decision was taken to have a unified High Court, located at Jodhpur. It was only in the year 1977 that a Bench was created at Jaipur.
(2.) DURING the aforesaid gap of time, the land allotted to the High Court was encroached upon by a private party, who was ousted in the year 2001 and by the aforesaid Government departments. A writ petition, being Rajasthan High Court Bar Association vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Others (1), was filed before the Jaipur Bench, in which, the Bar Association inter alia prayed that the respondents should be directed to remove the encroachments. In the writ petition, it was also prayed that the offices of the Director Local Bodies; Director Social Welfare; and Public Works Department should be shifted from the premises of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur. A learned Single Judge, on hearing the parties and on the material on record, came to the following conclusions: " High Court premises is a premises of the High Court, and can be used and occupied only by the High Court and not for any other purpose. It will not be out of place here to mention that the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary. Once a building with attached land is allotted to the High Court, it is for the High Court to use for its purpose. The building and land will remain with the domain of the High Court and no interference in any form can be from the executive. The same applies to the open land which is the part of the High Court building or premises. At present, I am not having the approved plan of the High Court building with me but the plan exists and it is only for the use of the High Court and no part of the land or building can be allotted to anyone else or can be used by any person without consent of the High Court. As far as this part is concerned, it is directed that the approved plan of the High Court building should be and would be the premises of the High Court including the land and buildings. If any change in the planning has been made without concurrence of the High Court, it is bad in law, to the High Court, and the original position should be restored to the High Court for its use only. If any change is necessary in the existing circumstances, State may submit the proposal for consideration of the High Court. After due consideration, the High Court will pass necessary orders in its administrative capacity. As far as the encroachments are concerned, it is the duty of all to take action according to law including the Public Premises Act, to see that the encroachments made within the High Court premises, schemes are removed. Respondents are directed to remove the encroachments if any, made within the premises of the High Court building including the land as approved in the original plan within a period of 4 months, from today. The process of removal of the encroachments should be taken according to law and no further encroachments shall be allowed and the respondents are prohibited to allow any encroachments by keeping the eyes shut. " This order was passed by the learned Single Judge on April 04, 1990. It is significant to note that the order was not appealed against by the State or by any authority or department. Thus, the order attained finality. In spite of the fact that the order attained finality, the offices of the aforesaid departments were not shifted. The order was not given the respect which it constitutionally deserved. The buildings have been raised over the area allotted to the High Court. It is not claimed by the State that they made the construction with the permission of the High Court. Even after a lapse of 14 years, the departments are clinging to the location, which legitimately belongs to the High Court. This is travesty of justice and negation of the rule of law. We have given ample opportunity to the State, to rectify the mistake. But, So far, the State has not shown grace by removing its offices from the premises of the High Court. There is no dearth of land and buildings with the State. The departments can easily be shifted elsewhere. The learned Additional Advocate General on August 13, 2004, had made a statement that he would take up the matter with the State Government and would be able to indicate the response of the State on September 06, 2004. The matter, however, came up on September 13, 2004 and it was again adjourned on the request of the learned Additional Advocate General. On September 16, 2004, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the recommendations of the Committee are pending consideration of the State Government. He requested that the matter be allowed to stand over for a few days, so that the final decision could be taken by the Government. We must point out that it is statement of the learned Additional Advocate General was only with regard to the building, which is in the occupation of the Social Welfare Department. As already pointed out, 30 bighas of land was allotted to the High Court. It is not disputed that because of the encroachments by the departments of the State, only 17. 56 bighas of land is available to the High Court. The action of the departments of the State, encroaching upon the land allotted to the High Court, cannot be countenanced in law. The action is wholly arbitrary and without any sanction of law. We cannot grant immunity to the encroachments made by the departments of the Government. The land legitimately belongs to the High Court and it must be returned to it. The available premises of the High Court are over-crowded. At present, there are very few chambers for the Advocates. There is hardly any space for parking of the vehicles. The State is bound to provide every facility to the High Court, for proper administration of justice. The High Court requires the land for its present need and for its future expansion. The requirement of land by the High Court is a dire necessity. In the circumstances, therefore, we direct the State of Rajasthan to vacate and hand over the aforesaid sites, which are under the occupation of the Government departments, namely, Directorate Local Bodies, Directorate Social Welfare and Public Works Department t the High Court, which four weeks from today. At this stage, the learned Advocate General, who is present in Court, prays that a copy of the judgment may be given to him. The Registry shall give a copy of the judgment to the learned Advocate General today itself.
(3.) LIST the matter after four weeks for reporting compliance. .;