- (1.) THIS is a petition by Kirorilal of Mahaswa, Tehsil Toda-Bhim, District Sawai Modhopur against (1) Tehsil Panchayat, Toda-Bhim, (2) Ramakishan and (3) Prahalad, sons of Joharial of Mahaswa.
(2.) THE allegations are that the petitioner Kirorilal has got a kacha house in village Mahaswa and he applied to the Gram Panchayat of the village for permission to construct a pucca house instead of kacha one. Ramakishan and Prahalad filed an objection. It was alleged by them that their house is adjacent to the petitioner's house, the walls of the two houses being contiguous. THEy wanted that Kirorilal should leave a lane one yard in width in between the two houses so that they could repair their own kacha house on the side of Kirorilal. THE Gram Panchayat rejected the objection and granted permission to the petitioner Kirorilal for constructing his pucca house. Ramkishan and Prahlad filed an appeal and the Tehsil Panchayat by order of 1st June, 19-57 directed that Kirorilal should leave a lane half yard wide between his construction and the kacha house of Ram Kishan and Prahlad. The contention of Kirorilal by this petition is that the order of the Tehsil Panchayat it not authorised by the Rajasthan Panchayat Act or the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel for Ramkishan and Prahlad contended that the order of Tehsil Panchayat amounts to a regulation of the construction of new buildings and was within the jurisdiction of the Tehsil Panchayat and as it fell within sec. 24 (12) of the Act. The contention of the respondent has no force. The rules regarding regulation of the construction of new buildings have been framed by the Government published in the Rajpatra of 15th January, 1955. It is mentioned in R. 11 which was framed for regulation of the construction of new buildings under sec. 24 (12), that: - "the member of the Panchayat shall ordinarily keep the following things in their mind while inspecting the site, and giving sanction - (a) that the passers by on the public streets do not feel any inconvenience if sanction is given; (b) that the passage of vehicles will not be restricted; (c) that the owners of the neighbouring buildings will not be inconvenienced in respect of light and air, and (d) that sanitation and beauty shall not suffer". The leaving of the lane half yard wide was only insisted upon by Ramkishan and Prahlad to enable them to repair their wall in case it was necessary to do so. In the first place if the kacha wall of Ramakishan and Prahlad became adjacent to the pucca wall of Kirorilal, the necessity for repairs would never arise. In the second place the lane of half yard width would be of no assistance whatsoever for the purpose for which it was claimed. Leaving these considerations apart the purpose for which the lane was directed to be kept did not fall within any of the matters which were to be kept in mind by the members of the Panchayat according to rules On the contrary a lane of this kind between two houses often comes to be used for dumping of rubbish and is the cause of insanitation. No rule or by-law made by the Gram Panchayat or Tehsil Panchayat has been Drought to my notice, which may require the leaving of any lane in between two houses when a new construction or reconstruction has to be made. The order of the Tehsil Panchayat was clearly beyond its jurisdiction. The petition is allowed, the order of the Tehsil Panchayat 1st June, 1957 is set aside. The petitioner will get his costs from Ramakishan and Prahlad respondents. . ;