Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Sohan Lal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 20085 of 2019
Decided On : 29-11-2019
LAND ACQUISITION - RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1959 - SECTION 5-A - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 18 - RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT RULES, 1960 - RULE 14 - SUMMARY: The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Rules, 1960, in the context of a dispute over the allotment of land in a housing scheme. The court held that the JDA Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, which had rejected the representation of a housing society for regularization of a scheme, and remanded the matter back to the JDA Officials for fresh consideration. The court observed that the rights of the petitioner, who claimed to be the khatedar of the land, could not be directly adjudicated before it and that he could raise his grievance before the appropriate authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the khatedar of land in Prithviraj Nagar scheme, challenged an order of the JDA Tribunal which set aside an order of the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, rejecting the representation of a housing society for regularization of a scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the JDA Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, and remanding the matter back to the JDA Officials for fresh consideration. The court observed that the rights of the petitioner could not be directly adjudicated before it and that he could raise his grievance before the appropriate authority.
Issues: Whether the JDA Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, rejecting the representation of a housing society for regularization of a scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the JDA Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, and remanding the matter back to the JDA Officials for fresh consideration. The court observed that the rights of the petitioner could not be directly adjudicated before it and that he could raise his grievance before the appropriate authority.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner could raise his grievance before the appropriate authority.
JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The application for seeking leave to file writ petition is allowed.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be khatedar of the land in Prithviraj Nagar scheme situated in Village Manpur, Devri @ Golyavas.
3. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to an order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the JDA Tribunal in Appeal No.834/2018 and Reference Application No.380/2018. One Ganpati Nagar Vistaar Vikas Samiti (hereinafter 'the Samiti') had filed an appeal before the JDA Tribunal arraying JDA as party in the appeal.
4. The facts which emerges from the pleadings are that initially JDA Tribunal decided Reference No.55/2018 (Ganpati Nagar Vistaar Vikas Samiti Vs. JDA and passed an order dated 14.06.2018 whereby the Tribunal directed the JDA to consider and decide the representation of the Samiti in accordance with the parameters laid down in orders dated 20.09.2013 and 08.12.2016 issued by the State Government.
5. The aforesaid Samiti filed representation before the JDA and the Deputy Commissioner (PRN South), JDA, decided the said representation vide order dated 27.11.2018. The said Authority found that the land in question was a vacant land under valid possession of JDA and claim by the Samiti was an effort to play fraud with the JDA and State Government and the application filed by the Samiti for regularization of a scheme was liable to be rejected as it did not have 5% residences and 10% construction as per the orders of the State Government. The said order also recorded a finding that no objections under Section 5-A or any claim under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 was ever made by the Housing Society or its Members and the land was said to be purchased by the Housing Society on 09.03.1984 and plots were allotted to the members in 1995.
6. The order further recorded a finding, since there was no award in favour of the Housing Society and it has no existence or having any house in the scheme, there was no question of allotting the land to the said Society holding camp by JDA Officials. The said Officer further found that the issue with regard to the acquisition of Prithviraj Nagar was already settled by the High Court and the allotment of the land in lieu of acquired land was to be in accordance with the policy of the State Government as approved by the High Court in respect of entire land falling in the area of Prithviraj Nagar.
7. The order dated 27.11.2018 was again put to challenge by the aforesaid Society by filing Reference No.380/2018 and Appeal No.834/2018. The JDA Tribunal vide its order dated 30.05.2019 has set-aside the order dated 27.11.2018 and the matter has been remanded back to decide afresh as per the earlier order dated 14.06.2018 and in particular point Nos.4 & 6 were to be kept in mind while deciding the reference again. The JDA Tribunal has further directed that the Competent Officer will decide the reference and same power will not be delegated to any other officer. The JDA Tribunal has further directed that the direction which was given in earlier Reference No.55/2018 dated 14.06.2018 in respect of issue Nos.5 & 6 were to be maintained.
8. The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the said order of 30.05.2019 and they have contended before this Court that the aforesaid Society in order to grab the land, has approached the Authorities again.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amit Jindal submitted that after remand by the JDA Tribunal before the JDA Officials, the note sheets reflects that only on the basis of agreement to sale, the rights are going to be conferred in favour of the said Society.
10. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner is khatedar and he is in fact entitled for allotment of land and as such the order passed by the JDA Tribunal dated 30.05.2019, needs to be setaside by this Court.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
12. This Court finds that the o
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
