Nanak Ram Moond S/O Shriram ... vs The Jaipur Development Authority ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4612 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:21413]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13872/2021

Nanak Ram Moond S/o Shriram Chandra Moond, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Magyawas, Teh.sanganer, Mudo Ki Dhani, Mansarovar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
         Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Urban
         Development And Housing Department, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

06/09/2023

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13294/2021 "Vinit Saini Vs. The JDA & Anr." with other

connected matters, with similar issue like in the present writ

petition, has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

14.12.2021.

2. In the order dated 14.12.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13294/2021, this Court has observed as under:-

"This Court finds that the Division Bench while passing the order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2929/2019, has directed the JDA Authorities to identify all the encroachments over the public road from Mansarovar Metro Station to Sanganer Flyover and other areas specified within a period of one month and after identifying the encroachments made, the encroachment removal drive was to be

[2023:RJ-JP:21413] (2 of 4) [CW-13872/2021]

undertaken and all encroachments were required to be removed within a period of three months thereafter. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench is quoted as here under:-

"9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent- Jaipur Development Authority is directed to identify all the encroachments over the public road from Mansarovar Metro Station to Sanganer Flyover and other areas specified as aforesaid within a period of one month from the date of this order. After identifying the encroachments made, encroachments removal drive shall be undertaken and all encroachments shall be removed within a period of three months thereafter.

10. The compliance report shall be filed by the respondents before this Court on or before 6.12.2021.

11. Though, the writ petition stands disposed of, the matter shall be listed before the Court for perusal of the compliance report on10.12.2021."

This Court further finds that D.B. Review Petition (Writ)No.120/2021 was filed before this Court wherein it was pleaded that the drive to remove encroachments from the road of 200 ft. wide was never identified and as such the action of the JDA Authorities was based on a wrong factual premise.

This Court further finds that the Division Bench, while considering the review petition, has clearly opined that the JDA did not enter into the issue as what was the width of the road and the order of this Court was only to remove encroachments on identifying them and it was for the concerned Authority to take action on the basis of its own record and whether the width of the road is 200 ft. or not is a matter which may arise for consideration before the appropriate forum, as and when the matter is brought before it, by any person who is aggrieved by the drive for removal of encroachment. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench is quoted as hereunder:-

"The order passed under review clearly shows that though certain stand were taken by the parties before the Court, including Jaipur Development Authority, this Court did not enter into the issue as to what is the width of the road.

The order of this Court is only to remove encroachments on identifying them. It is

[2023:RJ-JP:21413] (3 of 4) [CW-13872/2021]

for the concerned authority to take action on the basis of its own record. Whether the width of the road is 200 feet or not is a matter which may arise for consideration before the appropriate forum as and when the matter is brought before it by any person who is aggrieved by the drive for removal of encroachment. It goes without saying that the order passed by the Court earlier in review shall not come in the way of any of the person aggrieved against whom encroachment proceedings have been drawn and it shall be always open to such person to contend before appropriate forum in the matter of challenge to the notice of encroachment that they have not encroached upon any public road or public land and it will also be open for them to take all grounds including the ground with regard to width of the road."

This Court finds that the petitioners have also been issued notices and it is for them to specify before the Authorities that the land is rightfully possessed by them and the same is not an encroachment. The petitioners, if have any rightful claim in their favour, either for allotment or to retain possession, are within their rights to explain the same before the Authorities concerned.

This Court, while sitting as a Single Bench, has no jurisdiction to make any observations or to take a different view than what has been taken by the Division Bench.

This Court finds that since the petitioners have already filed reply to the notice issued by the JDA Authorities, the JDA Authorities are required to look into the relevant facts and thereafter pass an appropriate order in the matter.

This Court does not intend to entertain these writ petitions and since liberty has already been given to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Authority, it is for the appropriate Authority to take a final view in the matter in respect of any encroachment being made or not or whether the compliance of the order of the Division Bench has been made by them or not."

3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the

appropriate Authority for his grievances.

[2023:RJ-JP:21413] (4 of 4) [CW-13872/2021]

4. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay

application and all other pending application/s also stand

dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

ARTI SHARMA /67

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)