ORDER :

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 23rd December, 2015, made by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, "Tribunal"), in Appeal No. 73/2015: Dinesh Choudhary HUF Versus JDA; the petitioner - Jaipur Development Authority has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order.

2. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the petitioner - JDA, has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2015, made by the Tribunal on two grounds. Firstly, for the respondent was accorded permission for construction of the hotel under the Rajasthan Tourism Unit Policy - 2007 (for short, "Police of 2007"); and therefore, conversion charges are to be levied and were so determined according to the said Policy of 2007. Learned counsel contended that under Clause 3 of the Policy of 2007, there is no separate rate prescribed for hotels and other tourism units. Generally, hotels are considered to be in 'commercial category' and as such, it was proposed to assign as sub-category in the commercial category for hostels and tourism units in order to avoid any ambiguity for land conversion for commercial lands and hotels. According to the learned counsel, under Clause 7, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for hotels already established was increased from 1.75 to 2.0, to allow construction of an additional floor. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, interference made by the Tribunal in the calculation of the betterment levy on the basis of residential reserve price of the area is bad in the eye of law.

3. Secondly, the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2015, has been made in ignorance of the fact that the respondent has not raised any grievance as to of the original order dated 14th November, 2013, wherein the respondent failed to deposit the amount of additional FAR levy with 75% to the tune of Rs. 96,57,360/- while depositing rest of the amount as per the document dated 14th November, 2013. According to the learned counsel, the amount of betterment levy, was rightly calculated by the petitioner - JDA vide calculation-sheet placed on record as Annexure-23.

4. Referring to the Policy of 2007, learned counsel would contend that in the face of contemplation under Clause 3 and 7, there remains no ambiguity, and hence, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the matter while accepting the betterment levy calculated on the basis of the residential area.

5. Per contra; Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel representing the respondent, resisting the claim of the petitioner - JDA for any interference with the impugned order made by the Tribunal, raised the preliminary objections as to the very maintainability of the writ application relying upon opinions of the Apex Court of the land. Learned counsel vehemently argued that this is second round of litigation between the parties for earlier writ application instituted by the petitioner - JDA, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11590/2015 (JDA Versus Dinesh Choudhary), was remanded back to the Tribunal vide order dated 15th September, 2015, observing thus:

"The Tribunal is directed to address, aside of the legality of the impugned order dated 12.03.2015 on all counts also the issue of quantum of JDA's demand towards betterment charges payable by the respondent-appellant as a precondition for the release of the construction plans approved."

6. Referring to the impugned order made by the Tribunal, learned counsel contended that a glance of the impugned order made by the Tribunal would reflect that betterment levy chargeable in this case has been determined as Rs. 65,23,633/- (Rupees: Sixty Five Lac Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Three), while the petitioner - JDA raised demand for payment on that count to the tune of Rs. 1,31,18,233/- (Rupees: One Crore Thirty One Lac Eighty Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Three). It is further contended that