JUDGMENT :

1. Since common question of law is involved in all these matters, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order, with S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 115/2019 being taken as lead file.

BACKGROUND

2. The misc. application along with the connected writ petitions pertains to release of electricity connection to premises situated in Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (for short “PRN scheme”) of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short “JDA”). The PRN Scheme has been the subject of various litigation in not only this Court, but also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the last round of litigation, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2740/2013 & other connected petitions titled as ‘Sugan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2070, while hearing a challenge to the order dated 21.06.2012 issued by Department of Urban Development and Housing (for short “UDH”) which directed JDA to allot plot in favour of illegal occupier of the land after taking certain charges, passed the following directions:

“The perusal of the rule quoted above shows that in what circumstances and to what extent government can relax the rules. In the light of the provision aforesaid and as said rules have been invoked while passing the impugned order, the rate fixed for allotment of land cannot be interfered as such in view of the policy decision of the government. Rule 8, 9, 12, 14, 14B, 15, 15A and 17 of the Rules of 1974 provide manner and procedure for allotment of land. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 however gives power to government to relax rule for price, size of plot etc. This rule has been invoked looking to various aspects which include size of people to be affected and if a decision for allotment in accordance with the rules and for planned development of the area is not taken, demolition of thousands of houses with reconstruction would be nothing but a national wastage.

It is, however, necessary to comment that an area is developed only when government gets sufficient funds hence while fixing the rates for development charges, it should be at the actual cost to be borne by the respondents for development of the area thus development charges should be fixed keeping in view the aforesaid and the area should be developed immediately in the planned manner. For the aforesaid purpose, if constructions are to be removed, then this judgment will not come in the way of the respondents, rather they are directed not to sacrifice planned development to save encroachments and illegal constructions. It should be carried out as per the plan.

In view of the detailed discussion on all the issues, the writ petitions are allowed with following directions

1. The respondents are directed to allot plots to those petitioners who not only remained successful in the draw of lottery but deposited the amount pursuant to the demand letter issued to them. It would obviously leaving those who had withdrawn their amount or opted for other scheme(s) followed by issuance of lease deed.

2. The respondents may further consider cases of another category of petitioners who had deposited registration fee and paid the amount in part pursuant to the draw of lottery and demand letter. It would be expected of the respondents that a proper and sympathetic view would be taken for second category of petitioners at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This would exclude those who had opted for other scheme and thereupon given lease deed or withdrawn the amount.

3. So far as the impugned order dated 21.6.2012 at Annexure-16B, passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing (UDH) (in CW 2740/2006 “Sugan Singh v. State of Raj