Jaipur Development Authority vs Sanjay Modani S/O Shri Radhey ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5740 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 578/2022
                                          In
                  S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13599/2014

   Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary, Jawahar Lal
   Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                          ----Petitioner/Appellant
                                       Versus
   Sanjay Modani S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Modani, R/o 92-A,
   Panchsheel Enclave, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. G.S. Bapna Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Banwari Singh Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal Advocate.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 23/08/2022

Heard on admission.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellant would submit that learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition without proper appreciation of the stand taken by

Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'JDA') that the plot, which

was directed to be allotted to the respondent, could not be allotted

because it was not permissible as it was part of reserve land and

also affecting existing road by reducing its area. His next

submission is that the direction in the alternative issued by

Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short

'JDA Appellate Tribunal') that if no plot is available, then JDA shall

make available another plot in any other scheme of JDA to the

respondent, is not permissible because the scheme did not belong

to JDA but was of the private society.

(2 of 3) [SAW-578/2022]

We have gone through the order dated 04.07.2014

passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal as also order dated 28.01.2022

passed by learned Single Judge.

The order passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal shows that

when the map was submitted by the society for approval, JDA

itself corrected the map in order to ensure continuity of the road

by shifting two plots namely, Plot No. 44 and Plot No. 23. As far

as Plot No. 12 (which was allotted by the society to the

respondent) is concerned, it was found that the road was

culminating before the plot.

Upon due consideration of the material on record, maps

and various proposals submitted before JDA by the concerned

Society, the JDA Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that

reserve land is available there, out of which, plot, though lesser in

area as it was originally allotted to the respondent as Plot No. 12,

could be allotted to the respondent.

Taking into consideration the long pending dispute and

that the plot holder cannot be penalised for incorrect map and

further that even though a proposal to that effect was made by

JDA authorities themselves, proposing allotment of land adjacent

to Plot No. 1 in the reserve land, the learned Single Judge has

refused to interfere with the order passed by JDA Appellate

Tribunal.

We, however, find that the direction in alternative issued

by JDA Appellate Tribunal that if the plot is not available, then JDA

shall allot a plot to the respondent in any other scheme, cannot be

sustained because the respondent was not a plot holder in any

scheme of JDA.

(3 of 3) [SAW-578/2022]

Since the respondent has entered appearance through

counsel, we have heard his counsel also. We are inclined to partly

allow the appeal and modify the order passed by JDA Appellate

Tribunal only to the extent that the direction in alternative that if

the plot is not available, then JDA shall allot a plot to the

respondent in any other scheme, is not sustainable in law and to

that extent, order passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal and order of

the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, considering that

there was proposal to allot the land adjacent to plot No. 1 in the

reserve land, which does not appear to be on the road and that

despite direction of the Court, JDA failed to produce the original

records before the Court, order passed by the JDA Appellate

Tribunal and order passed by the learned Single Judge to that

extent need not be interferred with.

In the ultimate conclusion, we modify order dated

04.07.2014 passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal and partly allow the

appeal only to the extent that the direction issued by JDA

Appellate Tribunal in the alternative to allot a plot to the

respondent in any other scheme of JDA is set aside. The other

part of order passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal, however, stands

affirmed with the result that the land, which has been earmarked

under the proposal, for being allotted to the respondent shall be

allotted to him and in that respect, JDA shall pass appropriate

order and grant lease within 60 days from the date of receipt of

copy of this judgment.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

MANOJ NARWANI /5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)