Supervisory jurisdiction is limited to ensuring tribunals act within their authority and does not permit re-assessing evidence. Once land is legally acquired and possession taken by the state, subsequent revenue entries are ineffective, and any transfer of such land is prohibited by law.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 3 - the learned Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal (for short “JDA Tribunal”) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against auctioning of his land by respondent No. 1-Jaipur Development Authority was dismissed.

2. The facts borne out of the pleadings are that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the JDA Tribunal alleging therein that his land bearing Khasra No.128 of Revenue Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur was part of old bearing Khasra No. 48/171 measuring 11 biswa, which was entered in the name of late Brijmohan and was lateron recorded in the name of Brijmohan's son, namely, Roop Narayan. The aforesaid land of Khasra No. 48/271 was proposed for acquisition by the erstwhile UIT Jaipur, however, allegedly, the scheme could not be implemented and was challenged on the ground of the land being earmarked for extension of the Sanganer Airport.

The petitioner alleged in the appeal that the land bearing Khasra No. 128 measuring 0.04 hectare was recorded in the khatedari of the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.1985 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sanganer under the provisions of Section 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”) and the same remained under his possession. However, allegedly, the respondent No. 1-Jaipur Development Authority came and demolished the boundary wall and issued an advertisement dated 06.04.2007 in the newspaper for auctioning of the land which included the petitioner's land and the same was auctioned on 16.04.2007.

The petitioner filed an application before JDA Tribunal annexing the map drawn by an approved architect superimposing the petitioner's land on the Khasra plan and also, filed an application on 16.10.2007 before respondent No. 1-Jaipur Development Authority claiming that even if it was presumed that the land was acquired, the same was liable to be regularized as per the State Government's Circular dated 26.05.2000 with regularization charges @ 25% of residential reserve price.

Further, an application seeking direction to the revenue authorities for measuring the petitioner's land bearing Khasra No. 128 and the land auctioned by respondent No. 1-Jaipur Development Authority was filed by the petitioner, however, no action was taken on the said application.

The appeal filed by the petitioner finally came to be dismissed by the JDA Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 20.12.2007.

3. In the backdrop of these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the JDA Tribunal had no jurisdiction to test the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer as the same was not challenged by the respondent No. 1-Jaipur Development Authority and thus, attained finality. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 before demolishing the boundary wall of his land and the State Government had no power to acquire the said land.

It is further contended by learned counsel that the JDA Tribunal had committ