1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15956/2010

(Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti Vs. Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal & Ors.)

Date of Order :

27.03.2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Prem Krishna Sharma, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.N. Vijay for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for respondent No.4-JDA.

Even though the matter comes upon an

application, but with the consent of the counsel for the

parties, the petition is heard finally.

This petition has been filed against the order

dated 15.11.2010, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur in appeal No.16/10, whereby

the petitioner's application for impleadment has been

rejected.

The facts of the case are that the respondent

Nos.1 & 2, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal and Gyaneshwar

Kumar Agarwal respectively were allotted a plot No.A-35 in

Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti, Jaipur by the Jaipur Development

Authority (hereinafter 'JDA') under the Provisions of Section

54B of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982

(hereinafter 'the Act of 1982) preceded by an order under

2

Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and a

lease-deed came to be registered on 20.12.2007 in the

office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur in respect of the said plot.

The petitioner-Samiti appears to have filed a

complaint before the JDA with regard to the issue of lease-

deed dated 20.12.2007 to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in

respect of plot No.A-35 inter alia on the ground that the

aforesaid plot constitutes a part of drain and that in the

event the said lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued by the

JDA were to stand the entire colony would be put into

jeopardy in the event of heavy monsoon and no outlet

therefore – the existing drainage having been compromised

by the grant of lease-deed over the land which was stated to

be part of the drain.

On the complaint by the petitioner-Society or

otherwise, the JDA appears to have cancelled the lease-deed

dated 20.12.2007 vide its order dated 21.05.2008.

Aggrieved of the order dated 21.05.2008 passed

by the JDA, the respondents, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal

and Gyaneshwar Kumar Agarwal filed a statutory appeal

before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 83(8)(a) of the

Act of 1982. The petitioner-Samiti moved an application

3

before the Appellate Tribunal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

seeking to be impleaded as a party primarily on the ground

that as the lease-deed issued in favour of respondent Nos.1

& 2 on 20.12.2007 had been cancelled on 21.05.2008 by the

JDA on the complaint of the petitioner-Samiti, the

petitioner-Samiti was a necessary or in any event a proper

party in the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

The JDA Appellate Tribunal having considered

the matter came to a conclusion that the issue before it was

with regard to the cancellation of lease-deed dated

20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 by the JDA

without as much as an opportunity of hearing to the lessee

and in the context of the dispute for its adjudication, the

applicant-Samiti was neither a necessary nor a proper party

in the appeal. The JDA Appellate Tribunal thus dismissed

the petitioner-Samiti's application under Order 1 Rule 10

CPC for impleadment.

The counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has

vehemently argued that in the event the lease-deed dated

20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and

cancelled on 21.05.2008 were allowed to subsist and the

order of cancellation of lease-deed dated 21.05.2008 were

to set aside by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal before

4

it, the residential colony adjoining the said plot No.A-35

would be put to imminent threat of massive flood and

damages in the event of a downpour or excessive rain

during a good monsoon as it is the contention of the

petitioner-Samiti that the said plot No.A-35 is carved out