Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Case Details
Order 30/05/2025
1. It has been apprised at Bar that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions with the lead case of Gyanchand Soni Versus State of Rajasthan & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11939/2022 on 26.05.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered with the above bunch of writ petitions, therefore, the instant writ [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (2 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] petition be disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra).
3. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra) with the following observations and directions:- “33. In the considered opinion of this Court, the city's development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed without obstruction. However, it is equally essential to ensure that property owners whose assets are subject to demolition are given a fair hearing. Accordingly, a Committee is required to be constituted to examine each case and redress the grievances of the petitioners. If such a Committee comes to the conclusion that any individual is having a valid title over his/her property and still his /her property is required for expansion of the width of the road, in public interest, then decision must be taken at appropriate level to compensate such person(s).
34. While carrying out development work for beautification of the city and expansion of roads in the larger public interest, the respondents must ensure that if trees or plants need to be removed, they first count and document the number of such affected trees and plants. Subsequently, they should plant trees ten times of the number in the nearby public areas close to the city. This condition is imposed in greater public interest. Planting trees and plants, as directed above, is an initiative that this Court considers appropriate, as thriving trees, whether for decades or centuries, provide continuous and silent benefits to the city and [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (3 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] its surrounding community. Future generations will enjoy a cleaner, fresher, and oxygen-rich environment as a result thereof.
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is the right time and high time that proceedings should be brought to a logical conclusion, one way or the other. The development and expansion work of roads cannot be allowed to remain stalled for indefinite period. The same is required to be done in larger public interest as earliest as possible. The respondents may proceed ahead with aforesaid purpose, after following due process of law and making compliance of the direction of this Court.
36. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposes of all these writ petitions by issuing the following directions:- (a) The respondents shall constitute a committee within fifteen days from today and the petitioners shall submit their representations and objections, regarding their rights and title over the premises/lands in question, to the said Committee within fifteen days thereafter. (b) The Committee shall provide an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and shall decide their representations and objections strictly in accordance with law, by passing reasoned and speaking orders in each individual case. (c) In case, the Committee concludes that any petitioner is in possession of the premises, based on the documents establishing his/her valid title, and such premises are required for expansion of road, then adequate compensation shall be awarded to him/her, at the appropriate level, in accordance with the prevailing DLC rates and in the alternative, he/she may be allotted, land as per his/her entitlement, under any applicable government scheme. [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (4 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] (d) In the cases, where no objections are received, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the law. (e) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the respondents shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance. (f) If, during the course of expansion or construction of the road, plants or trees are required to be removed then the respondents are directed to count such trees/plants and prepare an inventory. For every removed tree or plant, the respondents shall plant ten shady plants in the close vicinity and nearby public area and shall submit a report in this regard to this Court. (g) After the representations and objections have been decided, the respondents shall be free to proceed with the construction of road, as per the Master Plan 2011–2031, provided that a minimum of fifteen days has elapsed, since the issuance of the respective orders on the petitioners’ representations and objections.
37. It goes without saying that the order passed by this Court would be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from today.”
4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in light of the directions issued in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra).
5. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. Karan/380 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Order 30/05/2025
1. It has been apprised at Bar that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions with the lead case of Gyanchand Soni Versus State of Rajasthan & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11939/2022 on 26.05.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered with the above bunch of writ petitions, therefore, the instant writ [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (2 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] petition be disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra).
3. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra) with the following observations and directions:- “33. In the considered opinion of this Court, the city's development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed without obstruction. However, it is equally essential to ensure that property owners whose assets are subject to demolition are given a fair hearing. Accordingly, a Committee is required to be constituted to examine each case and redress the grievances of the petitioners. If such a Committee comes to the conclusion that any individual is having a valid title over his/her property and still his /her property is required for expansion of the width of the road, in public interest, then decision must be taken at appropriate level to compensate such person(s).
34. While carrying out development work for beautification of the city and expansion of roads in the larger public interest, the respondents must ensure that if trees or plants need to be removed, they first count and document the number of such affected trees and plants. Subsequently, they should plant trees ten times of the number in the nearby public areas close to the city. This condition is imposed in greater public interest. Planting trees and plants, as directed above, is an initiative that this Court considers appropriate, as thriving trees, whether for decades or centuries, provide continuous and silent benefits to the city and [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (3 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] its surrounding community. Future generations will enjoy a cleaner, fresher, and oxygen-rich environment as a result thereof.
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is the right time and high time that proceedings should be brought to a logical conclusion, one way or the other. The development and expansion work of roads cannot be allowed to remain stalled for indefinite period. The same is required to be done in larger public interest as earliest as possible. The respondents may proceed ahead with aforesaid purpose, after following due process of law and making compliance of the direction of this Court.
36. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposes of all these writ petitions by issuing the following directions:- (a) The respondents shall constitute a committee within fifteen days from today and the petitioners shall submit their representations and objections, regarding their rights and title over the premises/lands in question, to the said Committee within fifteen days thereafter. (b) The Committee shall provide an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and shall decide their representations and objections strictly in accordance with law, by passing reasoned and speaking orders in each individual case. (c) In case, the Committee concludes that any petitioner is in possession of the premises, based on the documents establishing his/her valid title, and such premises are required for expansion of road, then adequate compensation shall be awarded to him/her, at the appropriate level, in accordance with the prevailing DLC rates and in the alternative, he/she may be allotted, land as per his/her entitlement, under any applicable government scheme. [2025:RJ-JP:22581] (4 of 4) [CW-12269/2022] (d) In the cases, where no objections are received, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the law. (e) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the respondents shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance. (f) If, during the course of expansion or construction of the road, plants or trees are required to be removed then the respondents are directed to count such trees/plants and prepare an inventory. For every removed tree or plant, the respondents shall plant ten shady plants in the close vicinity and nearby public area and shall submit a report in this regard to this Court. (g) After the representations and objections have been decided, the respondents shall be free to proceed with the construction of road, as per the Master Plan 2011–2031, provided that a minimum of fifteen days has elapsed, since the issuance of the respective orders on the petitioners’ representations and objections.
37. It goes without saying that the order passed by this Court would be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from today.”
4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in light of the directions issued in the case of Gyanchand Soni (supra).
5. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. Karan/380 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J