Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaipur Development Authority vs Smt. Vimla Devi, Wife Of Late Sh. Mohan ... on 28 January, 2021
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25473/2018
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Jaipur Development
Authority, Jaipur.
3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development
Authority, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Chitarmal Sharma, Son Of Sh. Badri Narayn Sharma, Aged
About 52 Years, Resident Of 181A, 10 B Scheme, Gopalpura Bye
Pass, Jaipur And Present Resident Of Plot No. 220, Patel Nagar,
Escon Road, New Sanganer, Road, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25475/2018
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus Smt. Vimla Devi, Wife Of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Saini, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 10B, Scheme, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur, Present Resident Of B-4, Netaji Subhash Nagar, Kisan Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25476/2018
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development (Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-25473/2018] Authority, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus Gulab Chand Verma Son Of Late Sh. Durga Lal Verma, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of 9, Devi Path, Takht-E-Shahi Road, Kanota Bagh, Jaipur.
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25480/2018
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus Revachand Soni, S/o Shri Maghanmal Soni, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 181-A, 10 B, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur.
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25481/2018
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Haricharan Gupta Son Of Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Shop No. 40 And 41, 10 B, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Malti Devi, Wife Of Sh. Hari Charan Gupta, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 10 B, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-25473/2018]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, Adv. with
Mr. Mohd. Adil, Adv.
Ms. Arti Goyal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 28/01/2021 Though the matter comes up on misc. application filed by the respondents, however, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority challenging the order dated 13.10.2018 passed by Jaipur Development Authority, Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the proceedings undertaken by the JDA in pursuance of notice dated 31.07.2018 of putting seal on the premises of the respondents, was set-aside. The Appellate Tribunal, however, gave directions to de-seal the premises of the respondents.
This Court finds that the JDA is said to have carried out the exercise of sealing the premises in view of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1179/2018 (10 B Vikas Samiti & Anr. Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal & Ors.).
This Court finds that the Division Bench subsequently on application filed by occupants of the premises, gave permission to de-seal the premises after taking an undertaking that no commercial activities will be carried out. (Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-25473/2018] Learned counsel-Mr. Sudesh Bansal submitted that due to exercise carried out by JDA Authorities of putting seal on such commercial premises as many as 20 premises were identified and out of 20 premises, permission has been granted by this Court for opening seal of 15 premises mentioned from serial Nos.1 to 15 in an affidavit filed before the Division Bench by one Shri Vaibhav Galaria, the then Commissioner, JDA.
Learned counsel submits that the present respondents are also prepared to comply with the same condition and at least permission may be granted to them to use their premises without having any commercial activities. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have also sought requisite conversion of their premises for commercial purpose and as such, they are pursuing the JDA Authorities to issue necessary orders.
Learned counsel submitted that no discrimination may be made between the present respondents and other persons/occupants who have already been granted relief as they approached this Court directly by becoming party-applicants in the contempt petition.
Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court may dispose of the writ petitions, however direction given by the Appellate Tribunal is required to be set-aside as the order of giving direction to de-seal the premises, was running contrary to the orders passed by this Court in Division Bench.
This Court finds that the action of the petitioners-JDA to de- seal was taken at one point of time because the orders were passed by the Division Bench in contempt petition. (Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM)
(5 of 6) [CW-25473/2018] This Court further finds that on 02.08.2018, the Division Bench itself had passed an order that if any premise was sealed and occupants were prepared to close their commercial activities in residential area, the Authorities were free to open the seal and allow the occupants to take their materials which were lying in sealed premises on the undertaking that no commercial activity was to be carried out in the said premises.
This Court finds that subsequently also the Division Bench has passed orders on 12.10.2018 and 15.01.2019 and directions have been given to the Authorities to remove seal of the premises which were occupied by the persons, who were said to be carrying out commercial activities in the residential area.
This Court finds that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which is impugned in the present writ petition, was not in consonance with the directions given by the Division Bench from time to time.
However, this Court finds that now the respondents themselves have given undertaking before this Court by filing the application that the articles, goods and materials which are lying in the shop, which are sealed since 01.08.2018, great hardship is faced by them and as such, the direction may be given to the JDA Authorities to de-seal the premises and the undertaking would also be given to the JDA Authorities of not using the said premises for commercial activities.
Learned counsel Mr. Anuroop Singhi appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the fact of order passed in respect of de-sealing of as many as 15 premises and only 5 premises belonging to present respondents, are yet to be de-sealed. (Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM)
(6 of 6) [CW-25473/2018] This Court accordingly disposes of these writ petitions by setting-aside the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
This Court further gives directions to the petitioner-JDA to de-seal the premises of the respondents after taking an undertaking that no commercial activities would be carried out by the respondents in their premises.
It is made clear that if any clause of the undertaking is violated by the respondents, the JDA Authorities will be free to take action as per law. The JDA Authorities are also directed to consider the request of the respondents for conversion of their premises as per Rules.
It is also made clear that if any application for conversion is filed by the respondents before the JDA Authorities, the JDA Authorities are required to consider those applications in expeditious manner.
A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86/Himanshu Soni 72-76 (Downloaded on 30/01/2021 at 10:08:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)