Ramswaroop vs J D A And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1887 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6340/2007

Ramswaroop son of Govind Ram, resident of Meenawal Pradhan
Ki Dhani, Kanakpura Stand, Jaipur
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg,
Jaipur.
2. Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited through its
Mantri, Ramgopal son of Jagdish Narain, 201, Havna Tower,
Brahmpuri Khurra, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondent

3. JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.

----Proforma Respondent

4. Kanak Vihar And Kanak Vihar Extension Vikas Samiti through its Executive Member, Shri Manesh Singh Tanwar, Office at 20, Kanak Vihar Vistar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7/2016 Ram Swaroop S/o Late Shri Govindram, resident of Meenawala, Pradhano Ki Dhani, Sirsi Road, Kanakpura Stand, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Government of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jaipur Tehsil & District, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Laxminagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti through its President, Hanuman Tower, Near Brahmpuri Khurrah, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Kanak Vihar & Kanak Vihar Vistaar Vikar Samiti through its Working Member Shri Mahesh Singh Tanwar, Office at 20, Kanak Vihar Vistaar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

5. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, U.D.H. Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents



                                           (2 of 11)                 [CW-6340/2007]


             S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 322/2008
Ramswaroop son of Shri Govind Ram, resident of                       Meenawala,

Pradhano-Ki-Dhani, Kanakpura Station, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri H.S. Bhardwaj, Additional Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

2. Shri Ram Prasad Sharma, Chief Controller Enforcement No.3, J.D.A., J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 365/2008

1. Ram Niwas aged 49 years, son of Late Shri Govind Ram

2. Nand Kishore, aged 47 years, son of Late Shri Govind Ram

3. Ram Swaroop, aged 44 years, son of Late Shri Govind Ram All residents of Village Meenawala, Pradhanon-Ki-Dhani, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Plaintiff-Appellants Versus

1. Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Registration No.2493-L, 201, Hanuman Tower, Brahmpuri Khurra, Jaipur through Secretary.

2. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur through Secretary.

3. The State of Rajasthan, the District Collector, Office of District Collector, Bani Park, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Defendant-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Manoj Bharadwaj through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur through V.C. (in Civil First Appeal No.365/2008) Mr. Ajit Singh for JDA Mr. Kapil Gupta for respondent No.2 (in C.W. No.6340/2007 and C.W.

                                No.07/2016)
                                Mr. Jagmohan Saxena



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI



                                             (3 of 11)                       [CW-6340/2007]

                                       Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                            ::                             17/01/2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                          ::                             02/03/2022

1. Petitioner - Ram Swaroop has preferred S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.6340/2007 inter-alia praying therein that order dated

20.7.2007 and the order of regularization dated 14.12.2006 may

be quashed and set aside and the respondent - Jaipur

Development Authority (for short "JDA") be directed not to issue

any patta in pursuance of the so-called regularization. Same

petitioner - Ram Swaroop has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7/2016 inter-alia praying therein that the order dated

19.12.2005 passed by the Authorized Officer, Jaipur Development

Authority, Jaipur and the order dated 8.9.2015 passed by the

Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No.37/2015 may be quashed

and set aside and respondents be directed to record land in

dispute in the name of the petitioner in revenue record.

2. Petitioner-Ram Swaroop and others have preferred S.B. Civil

Regular First Appeal No.365/2008 aggrieved by the order dated

4.3.2008 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was

allowed by the Court below and the suit was rejected. S.B. Civil

Contempt Petition No.322/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6340/2007 has been filed by petitioner - Ram Swaroop praying

therein that the respondents be declared guilty for the non-

compliance of the interim order of the High Court dated 13.9.2007

and to punish the respondents suitably considering the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(4 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

3. The dispute in all these petitions pertains to land situated in

Village Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur situated in Khasra

No.122/123 measuring 2 bigha 7 biswa, Khasra No.125 measuring

1 bigha 19 biswa, Khasra No.127 measuring 5 biswa, Khasra

No.128 measuring 2 bigha 12 biswa, Khasra No.133 measuring 21

bigha, Khasra No.134 measuring 8 bigha 1 biswa, Khasra

No.134/432 measuring 2 biswa; the total Khasra numbers are 8

and total land is measuring about 37 bigha 18 biswas in which

share of Govind Ram was 1/5th i.e. total disputed land is around 7

bighas. The subject matter of the dispute in all these petitions

being the above land, the same are being decided by this common

order.

4. The factual matrix of the case are that an agreement to sell

was executed on a stamp of Rs.10 by Govind Ram in favour of

Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter

referred to as "the Society") on 30.12.1995 at an agreeable

consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- per bigha. In the agreement,

Govind Ram admitted that the land was being sold for his and for

his family's need. The time period for payment of the entire

consideration was upto 31.3.1997. The right to develop a scheme

& to allot the land, right to get the documents registered and the

right to get the land converted were given in the agreement.

Different payment receipts and bank statements point out towards

the payment having been made to Govind Ram in lieu of the sale

agreement. In 1999, the Society submitted a list of members and

an application was filed by the Society under Section 90-B of The

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the

(5 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

Act of 1956"). Public notices were published in "Dainik Navjyoti"

and "Mahka Bharat" under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 read

with Section 63 of the Tenancy Act on 8.12.2005. One of the co-

shares filed objections on 12.12.2005. Vide order dated

19.12.2005, the Authorized Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Zone-

VII, JDA, Jaipur noted that there was violation of Section 90-B(1)

of the Act of 1956 and directed to record the land in the name of

JDA. Govind Ram expired on 15.9.2006. The scheme plan was

approved by the JDA on 26.10.2006. Notification dated 4.12.2006

under Section 25(3) was published in the newspapers issued by

the JDA regarding change in Master Plan-2011 for subject matter

from commercial to residential and seven days' time was given for

submission of the objections. On 14.12.2006 regularization of the

scheme of the Society was approved. The petitioner preferred a

reference under the JDA Act on 11.12.2006 on the ground that the

agreement was fabricated, notice was not served on the applicant

and Govind Ram had no right to sell the entire ancestral property,

as he can only sell his part of the share. The reference was

dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2007. S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6340/2007 is filed assailing the above order.

5. Petitioner - Ram Swaroop has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7/2016 aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner

dated 8.9.2015 whereby challenge to the order dated 19.12.2005

passed by the Court of Authorized Officer and Upayukt JDA was

declined.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner - Ram

Swaroop that the agreement to sell was not registered and

(6 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

properly stamped, so it was not admissible in evidence. It is also

contended that no personal notice was served upon petitioner -

Ram Swaroop in relation to proceedings under Section 90-B of the

Act of 1956. There was no signature of Govind Ram on the service

report of the notice issued under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956

and only thumb impression was there. It is further contended that

public notices were published in newspapers, which were not

having wide circulation in the vicinity. It is also contended that the

property was ancestral property and co-parcener right cannot be

sold by father and hence, the agreement is forged and fake and

not binding upon petitioner.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for JDA and Society that

the agreement to sell was a notarized agreement and as per

Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, proceedings can be initiated on

an agreement to sell and registration thereof is not necessary. It is

also contended that Govind Ram executed the agreement, money

was received by him and was also deposited in his bank account.

It is further contended that petitioner - Ram Swaroop is taking

different stands in different petitions. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6304/2007, petitioner's case was that father of the petitioner

was the khatedar of 1/5th share in the disputed khasra numbers

whereas, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7/2016, case of petitioner -

Ram Swaroop is that the land is ancestral land.

8. It is contended that in Civil Suit No.33/2007 titled as

Rajendra Kumar Sharma Versus Pappu Lal and others in which

Ram Swaroop and his brothers were the defendants, the trial

Court has held that the proceedings carried out by JDA under

(7 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 are valid. It was also held that

Ram Swaroop and his brothers are not entitled to have their share

partitioned by metes and bounds.

9. It is contended that the issues have been decided against

Ram Swaroop vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2019. Copy of

the judgment and decree was placed before the Court and Ram

Swaroop and his brothers have not filed any appeal against the

said judgment and decree. The fact of passing of the judgment

and decree was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the Society that plots

have been allotted to the allottees and they have raised

construction on the land and pattas were issued in regularization

camps. It is also contended that the entire proceedings carried out

by the JDA are in accordance with law. A notice was published in

Dainik Navjyoti, which has wide circulation in the region. It is

further contended that one of the co-sharers has filed objections,

which goes to show that the notice was served and was also

received by the objectors. It is contended that Govind Ram never

raised any objection during his lifetime and soon after his death

and after the plan was approved by the JDA and notifications were

issued, that the present petitioner has raised objection.

11. I have considered the submissions.

12. The fact of execution of agreement to sell and deposit of sale

consideration, is established from the documents available on

record. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there

is no registered sale deed and on the basis of agreement to sell,

no rights can be transferred, do not have any force for the very

(8 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

reason that Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 itself provides that

any person, holding any land for agricultural purposes in

urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area has used or

has allowed to be used such land or part thereof, as the case may

be, for non-agricultural purposes or, has parted with possession of

such land or part thereof, as the case may be, for consideration by

way of sale or agreement to sell and/or by executing power of

attorney and/or will or in any other manner, for purported non-

agricultural use, the rights and interest of such a person in the

said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be

liable to be terminated and such land shall be liable to be

resumed. Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 therefore provides for

termination of rights even when an agreement to sell has been

executed. Thus, a registered sale deed is not necessary for

proceeding under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956.

13. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that

father of the petitioner had not executed the agreement to sell

and a forged document has been created, cannot be accepted for

the very reason that the agreement to sell was executed in 1995,

the sale consideration was paid in the account of father of the

petitioner and till his demise, he never objected or raised any

grievance with regard to the alleged agreement to sell. The next

objection of the counsel for the petitioner that notices were

published in the newspapers, which are not having wide circulation

cannot be sustained for the very reason that newspapers "Dainik

Navjyoti" has vide circulation in the region. Moreover, one of the

co-tenants had even filed objection meaning thereby that it was a

(9 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

public notice. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that

notices were not served in accordance with Sections 59 and 96 of

the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, cannot be accepted for the very

reason that notices were duly served on father of the petitioner

and his thumb impression is there on the service report.

14. It is pertinent to note that petitioner - Ram Swaroop has

taken different stands in the petitions presented before this Court.

In one of the petitions, his stand is that the property is ancestral

property and he has right as a coparcener whereas in the other

set of petition, he has pleaded that property belonged to his father

and forged agreement to sell was created. Admittedly, petitioner's

father - Govind Ram had 1/5 share in the disputed property and

he was a khatedar tenant of 1/5 share of the said land. The issue

with regard to right of the petitioner and his brothers on the land

of which petitioner's father was having 1/5 share as a khatedar

tenant was dealt with by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur

Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.33/2007 and it was decided by the

Court below that the proceedings carried out by the JDA under

Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 are valid. The Court has also held

that the petitioner and his brothers are not entitled to get the

property divided by metes and bounds. The said judgment and

decree has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred by

petitioner against the said judgment and decree.

15. It is further pertinent to note that after the resumption of the

land, a scheme has been developed and pattas have been issued

and constructions have been raised thereupon by the plot owners.

It is also evident that the JDA has resumed the land as it was

(10 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

being used for non-agricultural purposes and even assuming that

there was no agreement to sell still the JDA had power to resume

the land as it was being used for non-agricultural purposes.

16. The original khatedar executed the agreement to sell in 1995

and during his lifetime, he did not take any objection and it was

only after his death that for the first time petitioner has raised

objection to the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of

1956. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the

agreement to sell was forged and this issue stands finally decided

by the Civil Court.

17. The contention that the acquisition of the land is illegal also

stands decided against the petitioner in Civil Suit No.33/2007

wherein the Court has held that there is no illegality in the

acquisition proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for

any relief with regard to resumption of the land by the JDA as

there is no illegality in the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the

Authorized Officer, JDA. Similarly, the Divisional Commissioner has

not committed any error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the

petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated

8.9.2015 so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, I do

not find any force in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7/2016.

18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 wherein prayer is made

for directing the JDA not to issue any patta in pursuance of the

regularization also does not have any force as the order of

regularization has been passed in furtherance of the orders under

Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Thus, this Court is of the

considered view that the proceedings initiated by the JDA were

(11 of 11) [CW-6340/2007]

strictly in accordance with the Act and they have not committed

any illegality in resuming the land and in regularizing the scheme.

The JDA Appellate Tribunal has also not committed any error in

rejecting the reference preferred by the petitioner. There is no

illegality whatsoever in the order dated 20.7.2007 so as to

exercise the writ jurisdiction.

19. This Court also does not find any force in the regular first

appeal for the very reason that issue stands decided between the

parties after the judgment and decree dated 4.11.2019 passed in

Civil Suit No.33/2007 wherein the objection with regard to the

execution of the agreement to sell was not sustained and the

proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 were held to be

valid. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has

no case whatsoever. Hence, this Court deems it proper to dismiss

the regular first appeal and discharge the contempt notices.

Accordingly, Writ Petition No.6340/2007, Writ Petition No.7/2016,

Regular First Appeal No.365/2008 are dismissed. Notices issued in

Contempt Petition are discharged. Accordingly, Contempt Petition

No.322/2008 is also dismissed.

20. All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

SUNIL SOLANKI /PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)