1992 Supreme(Raj) 930

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.L.Tibrewal, J.
B.L. Bakiwal - Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Development Authority & ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 390 of 1989.
Decided On : 3-11-1992

The JDA has the power to modify an approved scheme or project only if such modification is suitable and necessary and does not effect material alteration in the character of the project or scheme. The exercise of this power should be in a quasi-judicial manner after giving notice to the public and inviting objections and suggestions in relation to the proposed alteration.

Headnote:

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Functions and Powers - Modification of Approved Scheme - Closure of Public Lane/Street - Legality - Natural Justice - Public Interest - Building Bye-Laws - Violation - Action against Offenders - Mandamus.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a plot holder in 'Malviya Nagar Scheme' developed by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), challenged the decision of JDA's Land & Property Committee to close a 10' wide public lane/street adjacent to his plot and allot its land to respondent No. 2, an I.A.S. Officer. The petitioner contended that the closure of the lane would affect the public's right to use it and violate the Building Bye-Laws by reducing the set back space required for construction. The respondents argued that the lane was a 'strip of land' and its closure was necessary for the development of the area.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision of the Land & Property Committee to close the public lane/street was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court found that the Committee did not have the authority to make such a decision and that the closure of the lane would materially alter the character of the approved scheme. The Court also held that the decision was arbitrary and did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner and other residents of the locality. The Court further held that the JDA was under an obligation to take action against respondent No. 2 for violating the Building Bye-Laws and the sanctioned plan by constructing her house with a reduced set back space.

Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the Land & Property Committee to close the public lane/street was valid and legal. 2. Whether the JDA had the authority to modify the approved scheme by closing the public lane/street. 3. Whether the closure of the lane would materially alter the character of the approved scheme. 4. Whether the decision of the Committee was arbitrary and did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner and other residents of the locality. 5. Whether the JDA was under an obligation to take action against respondent No. 2 for violating the Building Bye-Laws and the sanctioned plan.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The JDA is exclusively entrusted with the duty of framing and implementing development plans and schemes and has been invested with almost plenary powers. 2. Where a statute imposes a duty, the performance or non-performance of which is not a matter of discretion, a mandamus may be granted ordering that to be done which the statute requires to be done. 3. The power of modification of any approved project or scheme can be exercised by the JDA only if such modification is suitable and necessary and does not effect material alteration in the character of the project or scheme. 4. The exercise of powers under Section 42(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 should be in a quasi-judicial manner after giving notice to the public and inviting objections and suggestions in relation to the proposed alteration. 5. A public lane/street vests in the Municipal Council and there is no authority either in the Municipal Council or JDA to allot any part of a public lane or street to any individual person by describing it as a 'strip of land'. 6. The JDA is under an obligation to perform its duty in accordance with the provisions of the Act and to take appropriate action against those who violate the Building Bye-Laws or the sanctioned plan.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the decision of the Land & Property Committee to close the public lane/street, and directed the JDA to keep the lane in existence and not to close it by making allotment of its land to any person. The Court also directed the JDA to take appropriate action against respondent No. 2 for the constructions made by her in violation to the Building Bye-Laws or building plan sanctioned by it.