Rajasthan High Court

Abhay Kumar And Ors vs Bhikam Chand And Ors on 5 February, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 207/2006

Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary, Ram
Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma
2. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through
Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka
Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem
Jaipur
3. Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan
4. Narayan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan
5. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan
Resident of House No.3150, Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chowkri
Purani Basti, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Rajiv Mehrishi, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development
Authority, Indira circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
7.    Sh.   Jagroop    Singh       Yadav,      the     then       Deputy   Housing
Commissioner, Lal Kothi Zone, Jaipur Development Authority,
Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondent
                               Connected With
                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209/2006
Rajiv Mehrishi S/o Shri Kamlakant Mehrishi, R/o A 51, Tilak
Nagar, Jaipur The Then Commissioner Jda, Jaipur
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma
2.        Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through
          Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri
          Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj
          Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur
3.        Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan Since Dead,
          Through Legal Heirs Details Not Konws R/o H.no, 3150,
          Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur
4.        Narayan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai


                      (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:39:00 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:5709]                     (2 of 7)                         [CR-207/2006]


         Lal Mushi Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur
5.       Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan Since Dead Through
         Legal Heir
         5/1. Dwarka Das Khandaka S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal R/o
         H.No.3150, Jai Lal Muni Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti,
         Jaipur
6.       Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary, J.l.n.
         Marg, Jaipur
7.       Abhay Kumar S/o Shri Arimardan Singh, At Present
         Working As Spd, Dpip, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
8.       Jagroop Singh Yadav S/o Shri D.r. Yadav, At Present
         Working As Additional Director Iecsio, Swasthya Bhawan,
         Tilak Marg, Jaipur
                                                                  ----Respondents
                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 210/2006
1.       Abhay Kumar S/o Shri Arimardan Singh, At Present
         Working As Spd, Dpip, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
2.       Jagroop Singh Yadav S/o Shri D.r. Yadav, At Present
         Working As Additional Director Iecsio, Swasthya Bhawan,
         Tilak Marg, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Narayan Sharma
2.       Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through
         Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri
         Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj
         Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur
3.       Vijay Narayan S/o Govind Narayan Since Dead Through
         Legal Heirs Details Not Known, R/o H.no. 3150, Jai Lal
         Munsi Ka Rasta Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur
4.       Narayan Lal S/o Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai Lal
         Munsi Ka Rasta , Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur
5.       Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan Since Dead Through
         Legal Heir
         5/1. Dwarka Das Khandaka S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal R/o
         H.No.3150, Jai Lal Muni Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti,
         Jaipur
6.       Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary J.l.n.

                      (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:39:00 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:5709]                        (3 of 7)                         [CR-207/2006]


         Marg, Jaipur
7.       Shri Rajiv Mahershi The Then Commissioner , Jda, Jaipur
                                                                     ----Respondents
                    S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2007
The Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. through its Managing
Director, DC-1 Lalkothi Scheme, Tonk Road, Jaipur
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Jaipur through its Commissioner.
2. Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma
3. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through
Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka
Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem
Jaipur
4. Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan
5. Narayan Lal S/o Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai Lal Munsi
Ka Rasta , Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur
6. Rajiv Mehrishi, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development
Authority, Indira circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
7.    Sh.   Jagroop       Singh       Yadav,        the   then       Deputy   Housing
Commissioner, Lal Kothi Zone, Jaipur Development Authority,
Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. with
                                    Mr. Dharma Ram for JDA
                                    Mr. A. K. Sharma, Senior Counsel with
                                    Mr. Madhav Dadhich, Adv. in S.B. Civil
                                    Revision Petition No. 209/2006
                                    Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Adv. in S.B. Civil
                                    Revision Petition No. 210/2006
                                    Mr. S. C. Mittal, Adv. in S.B. Civil
                                    Revision Petition No. 8/2007
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. G. P. Sharma, Adv.
                                    Mr. M. C. Gupta, Adv.



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                     Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                      05/02/2024

                         (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:39:00 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:5709]                   (4 of 7)                    [CR-207/2006]


      Since, these revision petitions have arisen out of the

common order passed by the trial court, therefore, they are being

decided together by this common order.

      Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Prem Devi

filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of her

possession over Government land situated in Khasra No.417

village Bhojpura, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submit that Prem Devi in her suit admitted the fact that disputed

land was acquired by the Competent Authority. So, there was no

need for the petitioners to prove the acquisition proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the said suit

was inadvertently decreed ex-parte. While decreeing the suit

ex-parte, the trial court ordered that suit filed by the Prem Devi

was decreed against the respondents and also observed that she

should not be evicted unlawfully. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submit that on account of encroachment over the

Government Land, JDA issued notice under Section 72 of the

Jaipur Development Authority Act. Prem Devi sold the land in

question to Bhikam Chand and Ramesh Chand by way of

purported agreement to sell. One Beni Das Agrawal represented

Sh. Ramesh Chand as his power of attorney holder but encroacher

not filed reply to the notice issued by the Competent Authority. As

per the Jaipur Development Authority Act, civil proceeding is

barred against acquisition of land. Instead of filing appeal before

the JDA Tribunal, the respondents preferred the Execution

Application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in the Court of Additional

Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

                    (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:39:00 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:5709]                      (5 of 7)                           [CR-207/2006]


No.4,    Jaipur     City,   Jaipur.      In       Execution        Application,   civil

imprisonment was never prayed, but court below exceeded its

jurisdiction. Having no jurisdiction regarding maintainability of the

application, learned court below ordered for attachment of the

rooms of the Commissioner JDA, the Secretary JDA and the

Deputy Commissioner Lal Kothi zone Jaipur. The court below also

ordered for civil imprisonment of the petitioner-Rajiv Mehrishi, Sh.

Abhay Kumar and Sh. Jagroop Singh Yadav. The court below also

ordered for issuance of notice to the then Commissioner, Secretary

and Deputy Commissioner of the zone for initiating the contempt

proceeding against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submit that before passing the order regarding civil imprisonment

etc., petitioners were not heard. The civil court had no jurisdiction

to adjudicate the matter in relation to the land, which had already

been acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit

that inadvertently documents regarding acquisition were not filed

before court below. So, matter be remanded back to the civil court

for fresh adjudication after taking relevant documents on record.

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2007-Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that part of the acquired land was allotted

by JDA to the petitioner and petitioner had deposited the required

money and lease deed was also executed in favour of the

petitioner but learned court below without hearing the petitioner,

had passed the order for demolition of the construction raised by

the petitioner on disputed land. So, without hearing the petitioner,

the order dated 14.12.2006 could not be passed. So, petition filed

by the petitioner be allowed.

                       (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:39:00 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:5709]                    (6 of 7)                         [CR-207/2006]


      Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Narayan Prasad Agrawal Vs.

State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 643/2002 decided

on 29.04.2003 and (2) Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar Dayal

Shukla in Civil Revision Petition No.57/13 decided on

04.02.2014.

      Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the civil

court rightly passed the order dated 14.12.2006. So, revision

petition be dismissed.

      I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

It is an admitted position that the trial court while deciding

the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC had not considered

the documents regarding acquisition of the disputed land.

Inadvertently these documents were not placed before the trial

court. So, in my considered opinion, without considering these

documents, the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the trial court

deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, these revision petitions filed by the petitioners

are allowed. The order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the trial court

is set aside.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on

11.03.2024 and trial court is directed to decide the respondents'