Judgment

1. In view of the intertwined nature of the controversy involved, coupled with the identical factual matrix emerging in the present matters, and with the consent of the learned counsel representing both sides, owing to the congruence of issues and for the sake of expedient adjudication, the instant petitions are decided by this common adjudicatory judgment, the ratio decidendi whereof shall operate mutatis mutandis upon all related pleadings. For the purposes of factual clarity and narrative convenience, the averments articulated in SBCWP No. 390/2026 are adopted by this Court as the primary factual matrix for the disposal of the instant lis.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELIEFS PRAYED:

2. SBCWP No. 390/2026 has been filed with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition and may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 29.9.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, JDA in Reference No.318/2025 (CIS No.318/25) (Manjeet Singh Chadda & Anr Vs. Jaipur Development Authority) filed by Applicant-Respondent: and further the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Reference filed by the Applicant-Respondent, with cost.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

SBCWP No. 1896/2026 has been filed with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition and may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 29.9.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, JDA in Appeal No.695/2025 (CIS No.695/25) (M/s. SSBC BUILDTECH LLP Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr.) filed by Appellant-Respondent: and further the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Respondent, with cost.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The substratum of the petitioner’s case, as canvassed, in SBCWP No. 390/2026 is that the present petition has been filed assailing the judgment dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, JDA, Jaipur in Reference No. 318/2025. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal, without adjudicating upon the fundamental issue of jurisdiction and sans considering the fact that the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Appeal No. 278/2025, was passed in a reference which itself was not maintainable, and in excess of its own earlier orders, has proceeded to pass the impugned directions. The learned Tribunal has done so despite the fact that the issue pertaining to approval of the building plan was still pending consideration before the State Government. During the pendency of revised plans submitted by the respondent herein, the learned Tribunal has directed the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’) to remove the guard deployed to ensure compliance of the order dated 09.05.2025, and has permitted the respondent to continue with the construction. The said directions are ex facie contrary to law, in violation of applicable planning norms, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. In pursuance to this nitty-gritty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset, submitted that the JDA, on 28.03.2025, issued an initial notice to the respondent in respect of unauthorized construction under Sections 32 and 33 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JDA Act’). Subsequently, upon failure of the respondent to take corrective measures and in order to prevent further violations, the JDA is