[2023:RJ-JP:27223]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14324/2023

Shailesh Bansal Son Of Shri Naresh Bansal, Aged About 48

Years, Resident Of 19, Arvind Nagar, Cbi Colony, Jagatpura,

Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban

Development And Housing Department Government

Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.

Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Commissiner,

Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur.

3.

Deputy Commissinoer, Prn (South-First), Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur.

4.

Topkhana Desh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Through Its

Secretary, D-239, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar for Mr. Kapil

Gupta.

Mr. Dharma Ram for Mr. Amit Kuri.

Mr. Ashok Sharma.

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

06/10/2023

Applications for impleading the applicants as intervenors are

allowed

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered and decided by this court in

the matter of Bhuvnesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2023:RJ-JP:27223]

(2 of 3)

[CW-14324/2023]

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14321/2023) decided on 05.10.2023,

wherein the following order was passed:-

“Applications for impleading the applicants

as intervenors are allowed.

This writ petition has been filed by

the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed

that your lordship may graciously be

pleased to admit and allow this Writ

petition and -

(a) by way of writ, order or directions the

respondents may kindly be directed to

demark the plot No. A-65 in Gautam Vihar

“ Madhuvan” Scheme of Topkhana Desh

Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti of the

petitioner and further it may kindly be

directed to Jaipur Development Authority

to issue the Patta / lease deed in favour

petitioner.

(c) Any other order or direction which this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and

proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case may also be passed in favour of

the petitioner.”

Grievance of the petitioner is that the

respondent No.4 is not demarcating the

plots in view of the letter dated 30.03.2022

issued by the Jaipur Development

Authority. Counsel further submits that on

the one hand the JDA directed the

respondent No.4 to demarcate the plots

with regard to scheme i.e. Gautam Vihar

Extension (Madubandh) and on the other

hand the officials of the JDA are not

allowing the respondent No.4 to demarcate

the plots of their scheme.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4

submits that the sale deed for the land in

dispute has been executed in favour of the

respondent No.4 through court order as

the decree was passed in their favour.

Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the applicant-

Intervenor submits that the land in dispute

is still in possession of the khatedars.

[2023:RJ-JP:27223]

(3 of 3)

[CW-14324/2023]

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv.,

appearing on behalf of the applicant-

Intervenor submits that they are in

possession of the land in dispute.

Counsel for the respondent-JDA

submits that the award has been passed by

the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the

JDA and the land in dispute is still lying

vacant. He further submits that the Jaipur

Development Authority has lodged the FIR

against the respondent No.4.

Heard and perused the material

available on record.

Considering the submissions made by

the all the parties and also considering the

record more particularly the order dated

30.03.2022 passed by the Jaipur

Development Authority, I dispose of this

writ petition with direction to the

respondent No.4 to comply with the order

dated