SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Raj) 2257

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Y.R. Meena,Prem Shanker Asopa
Harish Kumar Nagewala - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7065 of 2004
Decided On : 09/27/2005

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.P. Garg, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.M. Mehta, Ms. Preet Sharma, for the Respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that construction must adhere to approved building plans and regulations, and allegations of illegal construction must be substantiated with evidence.

Headnote:

Illegal Construction - Public Interest Litigation - JDA Act/Rules - Building Regulation 2000, Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulation 2000 - Plot No 165 to 168 - JDA Act/Rules, Building Regulation 2000, Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulation 2000

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging illegal multi-storied construction on Plot No 165 to 168, situated in Krishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. The respondent denied the allegations and stated that the construction was done in accordance with the approved building plans and regulations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no substance in the writ petition and dismissed it at the admission stage. The stay application connected to the writ petition was also rejected. The Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) was directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within 3 months.

Issues: Allegations of illegal construction, violation of building regulations, and inconvenience to the public.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the construction was done in accordance with the approved building plans and regulations, and there was no substance in the petitioner's allegations.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay application was rejected. The JDA was directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within 3 months.

Judgment

1.By this writ petition in the name of Public Interest Litigation the issue has been raised that on Plot No 165 to 168, situated in Krishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, illegal multi-storied construction has been raised.

2. JDA has not filed reply. Reply has been filed by Respondent No. 3. For ready reference the

reply reads as under:-“As regards, Plot No. 166 is concerned, it was owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia. Plot No 167 is also owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia, W/o Shri Birendra Kedia and Plot No. 168 is owned by Smt. Nirmala Kedia, W/o Shri Surendra Kedia. The owner of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 had submitted an application for reconstitution of these plots which was allowed by Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 24.02.2004 with the clear direction and condition that on the reconstituted plots, construction could only be done after taking approval of building plan from Jaipur Development Authority. On reconstituted plots, Jaipur Development Authority released duly approved building plan on 27.07.2004. Thereafter construction was started by the owner of the plots namely Smt. Shashi Kedia and Smt. Nirmala Kedia. Thus, the construction on Plot No. 165 was started and completed by owner of the plot namely Smt. Shashi Kedia likewise owner of Plot No. 166 to 168 namely Smt. Shashi Kedia and Smt. Nirmala Kedia has undertaken construction which is under process, therefore, Respondent No. 3 has got no connection with the construction on Plot No. 165 to 168 and has been wrongly impleaded in the writ petition, henceforth in absence of necessary party, this writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. Parawise reply to the writ petition:

1. That the averments made in Para 1 of the writ petition are denied in the manner it has been stated. The averments made in the writ petition clearly shows that it is not a Public Interest Litigation. To the contrary, petitioner is raising personal grievance and the contents of writ petition clearly shows that on factually incorrect statement, petitioner had filed this writ petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation.

2. That the averments made in Para 2 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that Kishan Nagar is a scheme approved by the Jaipur Development Authority. Kishan Nagar Scheme was launched by the Shilpacharya Vishwakarma Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Smt. Shashi Kedia, W/o Shri Birendra Kedia is owner of the Plot No. 165 measuring 389.24 Sq. Yards. Jaipur Development Authority held the camp and allotted patta in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia and also issued site plan. The allotment letter was issued on 23.08.2002 which was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. As regards, Plot No. 166 and 167 are concerned, these plots are also owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia. Smt. Shashi Kedia has deposited all demanded amount to Jaipur Development Authority and Jaipur Development Authority had issued patta in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia on 23.08.2002 and also issued site plan in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia. As regards Plot No. 168 is concerned, it is owned by Smt. Nirmala Kedia, W/o Shri Surendra Kedia for which also patta and site plan have been issued by the Jaipur Development Authority in favour of Smt. Nirmala Kedia. It is settled position that in the scheme duly approved by Jaipur Development Authority, the sewerage lines and necessary amenities are required to be laid down by Jaipur Development Authority, therefore, Jaipur Development Authority had demanded sewerage charges from owner of Plot No. 165 to 168. The owner of Plot No. 165 had deposited amount of Rs. 5,354/-through challans on 20 .10.2003, in respect of Plot No. 166 sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 3,451/-was deposited on 212.2003, in respect of Plot No. 167 sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 3,451/-, was deposited on 212.2003 and in respect of Plot No. 168, sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 5,678/-was deposited on 212.2003. It is relevant to mention here that Jaipur Development Autho






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top