Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Panchu Lal Paharia – Appellant
Versus
Rajneesh Gupta – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4264/2011
Decided On : 12-09-2022
JDA - Land Dispute - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, JDA Act, 1982 - Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 54(D) of JDA Act, 1982 - The court discussed the validity of the order passed by the JDA Tribunal, the power of revocation of allotment or cancellation of lease deed, and the appointment of successive committees affecting the rights of the parties. The court held that the JDA Authorities cannot cancel or modify a registered lease deed and such power is only available to the Civil Court. The court also emphasized the requirement of prior notice to the person concerned before any decision affecting their rights is taken.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of a plot of land in Jaipur. The petitioners purchased a plot and applied for conversion of land and issuance of Patta, which led to a series of legal proceedings and committees' reports. The JDA Authorities issued an order to modify the lease deed, reducing the area of the respondent No.1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the JDA Authorities did not have the power to modify or cancel the lease deed, and such power is only available to the Civil Court. The court also held that the appointment of successive committees affecting the rights of the parties required prior notice to the person concerned.
Issues: The issues involved included the validity of the JDA Tribunal's order, the power of revocation of allotment or cancellation of lease deed, and the appointment of successive committees affecting the rights of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the JDA Act, 1982, emphasizing that the JDA Authorities cannot cancel or modify a registered lease deed and such power is only available to the Civil Court. The court also highlighted the requirement of prior notice to the person concerned before any decision affecting their rights is taken.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
1. The issue involved in both the writ petitions is common and as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by the present common order.
2. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2011 has been filed by the petitioner-Pachulal Pahadiya challenging the order/judgment dated 01.03.2011, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.103/2010 and prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal filed by the respondent No.2-Rajneesh Gupta before the Jaipur Development Appellate Authority.
3. The petitioner-JDA has filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8366/2012 to set aside the judgment dated 01.03.2011, passed by the Tribunal and with the further prayer to dismiss the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 - Rajneesh Gupta.
4. The Tribunal has decided two appeals by a common order i.e. Appeal No.103/2010 and Appeal No.87/2010, filed by the private respondent.
5. The private respondent filed appeal No.87/2010 against the notice dated 08.04.2010 issued by the JDA and filed appeal No.103/2010 challenging the report of Second Committee dated 16.02.2010 and order/site plan dated 14.05.2010.
6. The facts, in the nutshell as pleaded before the Tribunal & High Court, are that on 22.11.1981 one plot bearing No.K-42 in Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur was originally allotted by Kisan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Housing Society) in favour of Rajen Jindal in Scheme No.5, measuring 50x75 yards i.e. 416.66 Sq. Yards.
7. The Housing Society had submitted a list of members, in which the said plot was shown at Serial No.42. The JDA issued a lease deed/Patta on 30.09.2003 and the lease deed issued by the JDA was registered in the office of Registrar, Jaipur-I on 10.03.2004. The respondent No.1 purchased the aforesaid plot from Smt. Rajen Jindal through registered sale deed and possession was handed over to him on 28.08.2006.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-IV, JDA issued order of transfer of Patta/lease deed on 16.11.2009 in favour of the respondent No.1 showing the plot size as 50 yards x 75 yards.
9. The petitioners - Panchu Lal Pahadiya and Smt. Nirmala Pahadiya in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2011 purchased one plot measuring 469.52 Sq. Mtrs. along-with constructed boundary walls by way of registered sale deed from one Ajit Kumar. Vijay Pal Singh and Ajit Kumar were sons of Kumbha Ram Arya and were recorded Khatedar of agricultural land admeasuring 27 Bigha 17 Biswa, in Village Durgapura and Ramjipura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
10. An agreement dated 03.01.1972 was executed by these two persons and they sold the land to Kisan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. measuring 23 Bigha and 7 Biswa out of total land of 27 Bigha and 17 Biswa.
11. Shri Vijay Pal Singh sold his half share vide sale deed dated 20.04.1972 and Ajit Kumar sold his share vide sale deed dated 07.08.1972 to the Housing Society and total 4 Bigha and 10 Biswa remained with the Khatedars.
12. The above-named two petitioners applied with the JDA for conversion of land and issuance of Patta on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 26.12.1998 purchased from Ajit Kumar and they claimed to be in actual physical possession.
13. The Deputy Registrar Commissioner, Zone-IV, had written a letter to the petitioners informing them that JDA had adopted due process of law and proceedings of Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 were done in favour of the Society and Pattas were issued in accordance with the approved plan on the basis of possession of the plot. It was also mentioned that detailed enquiry was conducted by High Power Committee and the land purchased by the petitioner-Panchu Lal Pahadiya, through registered sale deed, from erstwhile Khatedars out of Khasra Nos.205, 206 and 207, was part of the land, already sold by Khatedars to the Society.
14. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation against the letter dated 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the JDA Authorities cannot cancel or modify a registered lease deed, and such power is only available to the Civil Court.
Rejection of a lease deed for a residential plot based on facility area classification, previously invalidated by tribunal, violates Article 14 due to unequal treatment.
The court affirmed that the approved layout plan of 2008 designates specific plots as residential, rejecting claims of their designation as park facilities.
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of government lease, governed by statutory regulations, can be justified if the allotment was obtained by misrepresentation o....
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
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
