S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.301/2012

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH JAIPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.301/2012

IN

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3034/2011

(M/s. Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority)

Date of Order :

09.04.2014

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Mahendra Goyal, for the review petitioner-JDA.

Mr. S.M. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. R.S Mehta, for the writ petitioner-Insurance Co.

BY THE COURT

This review petition has been filed by the JDA in

respect of the order dated 05.03.2012, passed by this Court.

Mr. Mahendra Goyal, appearing for the review

petitioner-JDA, which was earlier the non-petitioner in writ

petition, has submitted that the order dated 05.03.2012, passed

by this Court, is wrongly premised on a purported concession on

“instructions” by the counsel appearing in the writ petition for

the JDA. It has been submitted that no such “instructions” to the

counsel had been given based on which the order dated

05.03.2012 was passed. Counsel has drawn attention of this

Court to application No.14169 dated 29.03.2013 filed in this

review petition wherein it has been stated that after the receipt

of the certified copy of the judgment dated 05.03.2012, on

finding that the order has been passed on the “concession”

extended by the counsel representing the JDA, explanation of the

S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.301/2012

(2)

counsel was sought vide letter dated 13.04.2012. Therein it was

specifically stated that no instructions with regard to conceding

in the Court on the release of construction plans within three

weeks or otherwise had been given to the counsel. It was

submitted that in pursuance to the said letter dated 13.04.2012

by the JDA to its counsel, vide reply dated 17.04.2012, counsel

had merely circumvented the issue and instead stated that “the

best possible order in such circumstances was getting an order

which will continue till disposal of suit. Since the possession is

already with the petitioner, the order with regard to not

alienating the property has been passed by the Hon'ble court

due to great persuasion made by us. It is not understandable as

to what the petitioner will do with the property which is a

commercial plot without alienating the same, otherwise also this

order will last till disposal of suit and in other words the stay has

been granted by Hon'ble Court in the case where JDA has failed

to obtained any stay in the Trial Court. Despite of pendency of

suit and TI Application for such a long time. Even there is no

direction to approval of the plan and direction has been given to

consider and the release the plan in accordance with building

bylaws of 2010.” It was then submitted that the concession with

regard to the release of the building construction plans to the

petitioner-Company even while its title to the land in issue was in

dispute, was a concession on point of law in view of the fact that

as per the JDA Regulations, 1996 and thereafter amended

S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.301/2012

(3)

Regulations of 2000, on receipt of application for grant of

building permission, verification of the title of the owner of the

land is required. Counsel submitted that in these circumstances,

no concession for release of the building construction plans

while the title of the petitioner-Company thereto was in dispute

could have been given. Reliance has also been placed on Rule 6

(3) of the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Divisions Reconstitution

and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter 'the Rules of

1975') stating that the said Rules are supplemental to the JDA

Building Bye-Laws of 1996-2000 and in terms thereof also an

application when received by the JDA either for sub-division,

reconstitution or improvement, proof of ownership of the land is

required to the requisite satisfaction o