Legal Heirs Of Late Shri Kishan Son Of Shri Rodu And All v. Housing Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

Legal Heirs Of Late Shri Kishan Son Of Shri Rodu And All Mandir With Chabutara Through Petitioner No. 1 to 3. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur. Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

4. Food Corporation Of India Through Its Regional Officer, Near Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17656/2013 The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Assistant General Manager (GAD) Shri O.P. Jain Versus ----Petitioner

1. Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Presiding Officer.

2. Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Commissioner.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Zone- IV, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (2 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B B L Sharma (In SBCWPNo.13923/2018) For Respondent(s) : Mr. R K Agrawal, sr. adv. with Mr. Abhiraj Modi Ms. Shritima Bagri for Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri Mr. Rahul Agarwal Mr. Amit Kuri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 27/08/2025

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13923/2018 has been filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or directions, the notice dated 19.1.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside. That by appropriate writ, order or directions the petitioners be allowed to have possession of the said land continue and the respondents may be directed not to disposses the petitioners from their land bearing khasara No.16/99 and 71 and 72 in any manner. That any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner. That the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17656/2013 has been filed with the following prayers: “1. By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order, Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment dated 05-06-2013 to extent of alternative relief granted in operative portion. 2. By issuance of suitable writ, direction of order the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow payment of Rs. 66,73,880/- up to 11-09-2012 and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of 12-09-2012 to till realization as an interest on the cost of the land. 3. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (3 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner Corporation. 4. Cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

2. With mutual consent of the counsel representing the parties in respective petitions, the following submissions have been made conjointly qua the issue at hand, by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.B.L. Sharma, that on 21.02.1983, an allotment letter was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) in respect of 24,200 sq. yards of land and possession was delivered as under: (i) 15,004 sq. yards in the year 1987, (ii) 7,050 sq. meters in the year 2003, and (iii) possession of the remaining 1,110 sq. meters has not been handed over till date.

3. It is further submitted that respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner directed the Chief Controller, Enforcement, JDA, Jaipur, to deliver possession of the remaining 1,110 sq. meters to the petitioners after removal of encroachments existing thereon. It is also submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire consideration for the land in question; however, on account of non-handing over of possession, the petitioner has been unable to construct residential quarters for its staff and officers. Moreover, as respondent No.2 has already received the full cost of the land at the time of allotment, the respondents are not justified in withholding possession or in seeking any further amount.

4. Being aggrieved of the arbitrariness of the respondents the petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, against respondents No.2 and 3, seeking directions for handing over possession of the remaining land after removal of encroachments and also claiming consequential reliefs including interest. [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (4 of 5) [CW-13923/2018]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for JDA, Ms. Bagri and Mr. Amit Kuri, have submitted that notices under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act were issued to the encroachers, pursuant whereto part of the encroached land has already been vacated. For the remaining portion, vide notice dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure-2 in Kaluram vs. State), further proceedings under Section 72 of the Act were initiated, as the said land had been acquired long back.

6. Contradicting the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Kaluram submitted that the said notices have been challenged before this Court on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as a bulldozer had been stationed outside the property with a view to demolish the same.

7. In those proceedings, this Court granted interim protection in favour of Kaluram in respect of an extent measuring 12 x (10+13), approximately 275–300 sq. yards. Learned counsel representing Kaluram has further submitted that petitioner/Kaluram is in possession and ownership of the said land under a valid title for a prolonged period, the allotment having been made to his predecessor(s) by the State prior to independence, and ownership thereof stands duly established.

8. Learned counsel for JDA has submitted that a portion of the land continues to remain under encroachment.

9. Learned counsel Mr. R.K. Agrawal has submitted that once the property stood acquired by the JDA, no challenge was ever laid to the acquisition proceedings, and, therefore, the plea of ownership now sought to be raised cannot be entertained.

10. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the material available on record, and taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs as under: [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (5 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] (i) The order dated 05.06.2013 passed in pursuance of the proceedings relating to FCI is hereby set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded in part to the JDA Tribunal qua which the petitioner–Kaluram is relegated before the JDA Tribunal to ventilate his claim with regard to the piece of land measuring to the extent of an upper limit of 300 sq. yards only. (iii) In any event if the petitioner-Kaluram is aggrieved by the order passed by the JDA Tribunal, he shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse. (iv) In case requisites qua the aforementioned are carried out within an upper limit of 30 days, the JDA Tribunal shall adjudicate the same on merits within an upper limit of 90 days, thereafter. (v) Till such adjudication, status quo as obtaining on the date of this order shall be maintained. (vi) If, however, Kaluram and/or other petitioners fail to avail the aforementioned opportunity within the stipulated period, they shall lose their right to claim over the land in question.

11. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are disposed of with aforementioned directions. All pending applications as well as interim orders stand disposed of accordingly. DEEPAK/s-171-172 (SAMEER JAIN),J

Legal Heirs Of Late Shri Kishan Son Of Shri Rodu And All Mandir With Chabutara Through Petitioner No. 1 to 3. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur. Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

4. Food Corporation Of India Through Its Regional Officer, Near Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17656/2013 The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Assistant General Manager (GAD) Shri O.P. Jain Versus ----Petitioner

1. Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Presiding Officer.

2. Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Commissioner.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Zone- IV, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (2 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B B L Sharma (In SBCWPNo.13923/2018) For Respondent(s) : Mr. R K Agrawal, sr. adv. with Mr. Abhiraj Modi Ms. Shritima Bagri for Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri Mr. Rahul Agarwal Mr. Amit Kuri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 27/08/2025

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13923/2018 has been filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or directions, the notice dated 19.1.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside. That by appropriate writ, order or directions the petitioners be allowed to have possession of the said land continue and the respondents may be directed not to disposses the petitioners from their land bearing khasara No.16/99 and 71 and 72 in any manner. That any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner. That the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17656/2013 has been filed with the following prayers: “1. By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order, Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment dated 05-06-2013 to extent of alternative relief granted in operative portion. 2. By issuance of suitable writ, direction of order the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow payment of Rs. 66,73,880/- up to 11-09-2012 and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of 12-09-2012 to till realization as an interest on the cost of the land. 3. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (3 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner Corporation. 4. Cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

2. With mutual consent of the counsel representing the parties in respective petitions, the following submissions have been made conjointly qua the issue at hand, by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.B.L. Sharma, that on 21.02.1983, an allotment letter was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) in respect of 24,200 sq. yards of land and possession was delivered as under: (i) 15,004 sq. yards in the year 1987, (ii) 7,050 sq. meters in the year 2003, and (iii) possession of the remaining 1,110 sq. meters has not been handed over till date.

3. It is further submitted that respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner directed the Chief Controller, Enforcement, JDA, Jaipur, to deliver possession of the remaining 1,110 sq. meters to the petitioners after removal of encroachments existing thereon. It is also submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire consideration for the land in question; however, on account of non-handing over of possession, the petitioner has been unable to construct residential quarters for its staff and officers. Moreover, as respondent No.2 has already received the full cost of the land at the time of allotment, the respondents are not justified in withholding possession or in seeking any further amount.

4. Being aggrieved of the arbitrariness of the respondents the petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, against respondents No.2 and 3, seeking directions for handing over possession of the remaining land after removal of encroachments and also claiming consequential reliefs including interest. [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (4 of 5) [CW-13923/2018]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for JDA, Ms. Bagri and Mr. Amit Kuri, have submitted that notices under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act were issued to the encroachers, pursuant whereto part of the encroached land has already been vacated. For the remaining portion, vide notice dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure-2 in Kaluram vs. State), further proceedings under Section 72 of the Act were initiated, as the said land had been acquired long back.

6. Contradicting the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Kaluram submitted that the said notices have been challenged before this Court on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as a bulldozer had been stationed outside the property with a view to demolish the same.

7. In those proceedings, this Court granted interim protection in favour of Kaluram in respect of an extent measuring 12 x (10+13), approximately 275–300 sq. yards. Learned counsel representing Kaluram has further submitted that petitioner/Kaluram is in possession and ownership of the said land under a valid title for a prolonged period, the allotment having been made to his predecessor(s) by the State prior to independence, and ownership thereof stands duly established.

8. Learned counsel for JDA has submitted that a portion of the land continues to remain under encroachment.

9. Learned counsel Mr. R.K. Agrawal has submitted that once the property stood acquired by the JDA, no challenge was ever laid to the acquisition proceedings, and, therefore, the plea of ownership now sought to be raised cannot be entertained.

10. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the material available on record, and taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs as under: [2025:RJ-JP:34207] (5 of 5) [CW-13923/2018] (i) The order dated 05.06.2013 passed in pursuance of the proceedings relating to FCI is hereby set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded in part to the JDA Tribunal qua which the petitioner–Kaluram is relegated before the JDA Tribunal to ventilate his claim with regard to the piece of land measuring to the extent of an upper limit of 300 sq. yards only. (iii) In any event if the petitioner-Kaluram is aggrieved by the order passed by the JDA Tribunal, he shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse. (iv) In case requisites qua the aforementioned are carried out within an upper limit of 30 days, the JDA Tribunal shall adjudicate the same on merits within an upper limit of 90 days, thereafter. (v) Till such adjudication, status quo as obtaining on the date of this order shall be maintained. (vi) If, however, Kaluram and/or other petitioners fail to avail the aforementioned opportunity within the stipulated period, they shall lose their right to claim over the land in question.

11. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are disposed of with aforementioned directions. All pending applications as well as interim orders stand disposed of accordingly. DEEPAK/s-171-172 (SAMEER JAIN),J