Jaipur, November 12 In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has imposed a ban on the parking of heavy forage vehicles on government land in Hadota village, Chomu. The court has also issued notices to top officials, including the Chief Secretary, Principal Revenue Secretary, District Collector, and Home Secretary, demanding explanations on the matter. This order came from a division bench comprising Justice Indrajit Singh and Justice Ashutosh Kumar, responding to a public interest litigation filed by Rameshwar Prasad and others.
The petition, represented by Advocate Premchand Devanda, presented serious allegations, claiming that the village sarpanch, in collusion with officials from the gram panchayat and panchayat samiti, had granted parking contracts for forage vehicles on grazing and public access land without following legal procedures. According to the petition, land designated for common use, such as grazing, is legally protected under the Tenancy Act, Panchayati Raj Act, and Land Revenue Act and cannot be repurposed.
In 2017, a contract was awarded for parking heavy forage vehicles on this land at a significant amount of ₹1.58 crore, but later, the local Sub-Divisional Officer halted the tender, citing its status as grazing land. Despite this, the land was allegedly awarded again this year, with a contract given to a favored contractor for just ₹31.21 lakh—raising questions of misconduct and favoritism.
The petition further highlighted that the presence of these heavy forage vehicles on land near a women’s college posed a serious threat to the safety of female students, who now face risks in a once-secure environment. Addressing these grave concerns, the court has not only banned the parking of heavy forage vehicles on this land but has also demanded detailed responses from involved officials.
This order brings much-needed attention to the misuse of public land and stands as a call for accountability, reminding us that government land, especially meant for common use, should serve the community and not personal interests. The court’s decision is a reminder that misuse of public property will be scrutinized, and the voices of local residents and students will not go unheard.
