ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in all these five writ petitions is identical and the impugned order is same, hence all these five writ petitions are being decided by a common order.

2. The facts which emerges from the pleadings are that the original appellant-Mahesh Kumar Jain filed four different appeals before the Appellate Authority, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal, JDA') mentioning therein that Khasra Nos. 92, 94, 95, 100 and 104/572 situated at Village Mangyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, belong to Shri. Prabhu and Shri Dhanna both sons of Shri Ramdev. The suit property was Khatedari land of Prabhu and Dhanna. On 28.06.1991, the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, 'the JDA') acquired the said land and the award with regard to the land situated in aforementioned Khasras was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.06.1991.

On 13.12.1995 the aforesaid Khatedars and Roopwas Model Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti entered into an agreement for sale with respect to the aforesaid property for developing a housing society in the name and style of Metrocity Vikas Samiti. In the said agreement it was agreed that the aforesaid Khatedars will cooperate with the society for ensuring that the aforesaid property will be transferred in the name of the society as per law. At the time of signing of the agreement the Vikas Samiti paid the consideration amount and issued receipt to the Khatedars and physical possession of the said property was also handed over to the Vikas Samiti.

On 10.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed an agreement in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Jain with regard to the aforesaid property. As per the agreement, the Khatedars have to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mahesh Kumar Jain to enable him to obtain necessary approval from the JDA on behalf of the Khatedars. In furtherance of the aforesaid agreement, a General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Jain by the recorded Khatedars.

On 11.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed a compromise / agreement in favour of the JDA in order to obtain 15% developed land in lieu of compensation for the acquired land.

On 02.08.2002 the JDA issued a reservation letter for 15 % developed land in lieu of compensation in favour of aforesaid Khatedars.

On 19.08.2002 the recorded Khatedars through a registered letter cancelled the Power of Attorney dated 12.08.2002. An information with regard to cancellation was also published in the newspaper.

On 03.09.2002 Mahesh Kumar Jain obtained unregistered lease for 15 % developed land allotted to the recorded Khatedars against the acquisition of the aforesaid property.

On 01.02.2003 Mahesh Kumar Jain sent a registered notice to the recorded Khatedars for execution of the lease deed in his favour stating that in case they fail to execute the sale deed in his favour, he shall file a suit for specific performance. The aforesaid Khatedars on 22.02.2003 sent reply to the legal notice dated 01.02.2003 denying therein that there is no requirement for execution of the lease deed sought by Mahesh Kumar Jain as the agreement dated 10.04.2002 is not valid and is forged one.

On 21.10.2005 the Vikas Samiti entered into a further agreement with the recorded Khatedars for purchase of the aforesaid land. The agreement clearly states that the same was executed in furtherance of the agreement dated 13.12.1995. The Vikas Samiti in furtherance of the agreements developed the housing society and issued allotment letters to several individuals.

On 23.09.2002 the acquisition for the purposes of development of Prithvi Raj Nagar was cancelled. The said cancellation was on account of order dated 20.09.2013.

To regularize the land allotted to its members, the JDA issued public Notifications dated 04.06.2020, 15.06.2020 and 08.07.2020 which were challenged by Mahesh Kumar Jain in the appeals filed by him before the JDA Appellate Tribunal.

The JDA Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.02.2022 allowe