Only a person with an undisputed title-deed of ownership can move an application for permission for sub-division, reconstitution, or improvement of plots.

1. :- The instant writ petition is directed against the order impugned dated 20.4.96, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal"), constituted under Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1982"), whereby, the Tribunal has declared that the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred as "the JDA"), through its Secretary, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, and Lankapuri Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, through its Secretary, Prithvi Singh Shekhawat, have no legal authority, to interfere, with the possession of the respondent No.1, Rajasthan Gau Sewa Sangh, with regard to Khasra No. 363, situated in Village-Goplapura, falling under Shanti Nagar Scheme, shown by letters 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', in the approved sanctioned map, as facility area, for public utility.

2. The aforesaid order, dated 20.4.96, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed by Tribunal, is based on the findings, recorded by it that on the basis of agreement to sell, executed in favour of the petitioner, by the respondent No.1, it (the petitioner), is not entitled to move an application, for permission, before the JDA, for sub-division, reconstitution or improvements of plots, under the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstitution and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1975"). It is held by Tribunal that under the statutory rules, an application for permission for sub-division, reconstitution and improvement of plots, can be moved only by a person, before the JDA, who possessed undisputed title-deed of ownership of land in question. It is further held by Tribunal that since in the present case, the petitioner does not possess undisputed title-deed of ownership, on basis of agreement to sell, executed by the respondent No.1, in its favour, hence, JDA has no jurisdiction under the statutory rules, to approve the sanctioned map, at the behest of the petitioner, before obtaining a decree of specific performance from a competent civil court. As the respondent No.1, Rajasthan Gau Sewa Sangh continues to be the owner of the land in dispute and it has not moved an application for permission, for sub-division, reconstitution or for improvement of plots, the facility area, earmarked by letters 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', in the sanctioned map, area for public utility, does not vest in JDA, under the law.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length. Perused the averments made in the writ petition and the replies filed thereto, by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. At the first instance, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.L. Pareek, that under sub-rule (3) of Rule-6 of the Rules of 1975, the petitioner, Lankapuri Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., which is a registered society under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, after conversion of land, was entitled to get the map of Shanti Nagar Scheme, sanctioned from JDA. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision, rendered by Supreme Court, in case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur and another, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1923 , wherein the connotation "belonging" has been defined by the Apex Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Shri N.K. Joshi, adopted the aforesaid argument, advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In addition to the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel, Shri N.K. Joshi, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, submits that it is true that the application of the petitioner was required to be supported by documentary evidence relating to its undisputed title over the land in dispute, but since the land in dispute was converted from agricultural land to abadi land, therefore, even if on basis of agreement to sell, executed by the respondent No.1