##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:14484]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17410/2025

Dr Adhi Raj Singh Son Of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Green Acres, Village Machwa, Tehsil Kalwar,

Kalwar Road, Jaipur - 302004 ----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal

Nehru Marg, Jaipur - 302004.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone 12, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle,

Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur - 302004.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrit Kumar Surolia with Mr. Aditya Surolia

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri Mr. Atul Kumar Saraswat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

30/03/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

following prayer :-

(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, to quash and set aside all the proceedings initiated by the respondents-JDA on the basis of the forged and

fabricated 'samarpannama'.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the Enquiry Committee to conduct the inquiry fairly, transparently, and expeditiously, by granting the petitioner a full opportunity to be heard and to

present his evidences and documents.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:51:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 06:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14484] (2 of 8) [CW-17410/2025]

(iii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents-JDA authorities to ensure complete protection of the petitioner's property rights and to take appropriate action against the culprits involved in the forgery regarding the petitioner's

subject-property.

(iv) The Anti Corruption Bureau be directed/ordered to register an appropriate case in this matter and the public servants involved in corrupt criminal activities be suitably prosecuted

and punished.

(v) Any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction or relief to the petitioner which may found to be prim and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in

favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as "the JDA") has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal/reference as regards any proceedings or order passed by the JDA if such action of the JDA Authority has

caused any injury to the petitioner.

Section 83(8) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982

(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1982”) provides for remedy of appeal/reference before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as “the

Tribunal”). Section 83(8) of the Act of 1982 is quoted as under:-

“Section 83 .……

[(8) Except as otherwise provided,-

(a) any person aggrieved by an order or notice of the Authority may file an appeal in the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of such order or

notice to him; and (b) any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting his rights may refer

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:51:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 06:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14484] (3 of 8) [CW-17410/2025]

the dispute to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or

injury;

and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final.]”

As regards the prayer No.1, if the petitioner is aggrieved by

any proceedings of the respondent-JDA, he may avail statutory remedy of appeal/reference as provided under Section 83(8) of

the Act of 1982.

3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC

1 observed as under:-

“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High C