JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR v. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority

2. Shri Hanuman Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, resident of 17, Ashok Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1437/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. VERSUS ---PETITIONER

1.Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2.Smt. Kalpana Devi W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of A-21, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS 2

4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1438/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. VERSUS ---PETITIONER

1. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, resident of A- 21, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS

5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1439/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. VERSUS ---PETITIONER

1. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Radhey Lal S/o Shri Narayan Lal, resident of C-33, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS

6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1440/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. VERSUS ---PETITIONER

1. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Reena daughter of Mohan Lal Meena, resident of A-21, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS

7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1441/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. ---PETITIONER 3 VERSUS

1. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Uganti Devi W/o Shri Hari Prasad, resident of C-32, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS

8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1442/2009 Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indra Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. VERSUS ---PETITIONER

1. Jaipur Development Appellate Authority through its Presiding Officer, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Hari Prasad S/o Shri Teja Ram, C/o C-32, J.P. Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ---RESPONDENTS <><><> Date of Order :: 16th September, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr. Amit Kuri for petitione. Mr. Sudesh Bansal and Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj for respondent(s). BY THE COURT: <><><> The instant batch of writ applications is directed against the order dated 6th August, 2008, made by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”), on reference application number 460 to 467 and 443 of 2007.

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent/applicant(s) filed a reference petition under Section 83(8) (B) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, along with an 4 application for temporary injunction praying for a restraint order against demolition of the construction on the plot(s) in dispute. It is pleaded case of the petitioner-JDA that the road in the Scheme was required to be widened from 100 feet to 200 feet, therefore, land was acquired. Further, demolition of the construction for the purpose aforesaid was necessary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- JDA, Mr. Amit Kuri, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 6th August, 2018, emphatically argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction for the petitioner-JDA, has an absolute authority to widen the road keeping in view the public interest and as a policy decision, and therefore, the interference by the Tribunal is bad in the eye of law. According to the learned counsel, the land, which was open, was acquired for the purpose of widening of the road, and therefore, the Tribunal fell in gross error of law and fact while making the impugned order dated 6th August, 2008. However, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel admitted the fact that in furtherance of the impugned order, the Scheme has been technically approved.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/applicant(s), Mr. Sudesh Bansal and Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, while supporting the impugned order and judgment dated 6th August, 2008, vehemently contended that the respondent(s) along with their affidavit submitted the Scheme along with the layout map, allotment letters, site plan and the judgments made by the Revenue Court.

5. It is further urged that on a consideration of the materials available on record, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding to the 5 effect that Khasra Number 720, 724 and 744 (New Number 245, 295 to 297 and 299 to 301), were subjected to proceedings under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, and therefore, the JDA has the authority to widen the road. According to the Jamabandi, Khasra Number 245 consisting of land measuring an area of 1.02 hectare was also subjected to proceedings under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. Thus, the JDA was required to approve the Scheme and the land involved, could not be utilized for the purpose of laying a bye- pass Road. Further, existence of 100 feet wide road is reflected from the materials available on record and findings arrived at by the Tribunal on that basis.

6. It is asserted on behalf of the respondent(s)/applicant(s), who were in possession of the land that if necessary, the land may be acquired for the purpose of widening of the road, but in accordance with law subject to payment of compensation as has been concluded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2008, calls for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

8. Indisputably, the Tribunal while making the judgment dated 6th August, 2008, left it open for determination of the JDA to regularize the Scheme in accordance with the Jaipur Development Authority Act of 1982 and Rules made thereunder while restraining the JDA from any interference in the use and possession of the land/plot(s) involved herein until the Scheme was regularized. 6

9. The Tribunal further held that while undertaking the process of widening of the road from 100 feet to 200 feet, procedure be adopted in accordance with law. Further, until approval was accorded to the Scheme; status-quo as existed at the relevant time shall be maintained. The respondent(s)/applicant(s), were also restrained from raising any construction but for boundary walls in accordance with the Scheme.

10. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner – JDA in compliance of the judgment dated 6th August, 2008, impugned herein; has proceeded with and has accorded technical approval to 'Ashok Vihar Scheme'.

11. The proceedings for regularization and subsequent determination of the area in the 'Scheme' in the 'Scheme' in accordance with the relevant Rules/Regulations of the JDA, are yet to be completed; for which a camp is required to be held. Thus, it is admitted that the petitioner-JDA has already proceeded to comply with the directions made in the impugned order.

12. From the materials available on record and findings arrived at by the Tribunal for the reasons recorded therein; the determination of the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2008, cannot be faulted.

13. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the impugned order and judgment dated 6th August, 2008, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. No other point was raised for consideration of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties.

15. Consequently, the writ application(s) fail and is/are hereby 7 dismissed.

15. Stay application(s) also stand closed.

16. A copy of the judgment be placed in each of the file. Solanki Sunil (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.