Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
J D A vs Smt Surdarshana Bagda Andanr ... on 16 May, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023/RJJP/011108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13586/2009
Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Near
Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Dy. Commissioner, Zone-VII, JDA,
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Surdarshana Bagda W/o Shri Mani Bhadra Bagda, R/o
B-99-A, University Road, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
2. Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Near Indira Circle, JLN Marg,
Jaipur, through its Presiding Officer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Samant
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
16/05/2023
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Jaipur Development Authority through Dy. Commissioner, Zone-VII, JDA under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.05.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, JDA Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 90/2008 titled as Smt. Sudarshana Bagda vs. Jaipur Development Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter, JDA) has submitted that the JDA, as per the mandate of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter, Act of 1982) is responsible for the planned development of the region(s) and/or areas falling under its jurisdiction. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the JDA Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 whereby the decision taken (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM) [2023/RJJP/011108] (2 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] by the BPC-II (CPC) dated 27.03.2006 wherein the land comprising of Plot No. 124-A, Scheme No.16-A, Gandhi Path, Queens Road, Jaipur had not been allowed to be allotted for residential purposes, has been declared as null and void and thereby, allotment of the said plot in question, which fell under the facility area, has been made to the respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the allotment so made in favour of respondent no.1, the petitioner-JDA has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel has submitted that the land comprising of Plot No. 124-A, Scheme No.16-A, Gandhi Path, Queens Road, Jaipur was not permitted to be allotted for residential purposes, on account of the same being included in the drawn/planned facility area. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, it was submitted by the respondent no.1 that she was allotted Plot No.124-A, Scheme No.16-A, Gandhi Path, Queens Road by the Pathik Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Thereafter, the said land in contention admeasuring 441 sq. yards came to be bought by the respondent no.1 from the aforementioned Samiti. Moreover, subsequent to the creation of the scheme, the Samiti had prepared a list of its allottees wherein the name of the respondent no.1 was also reflected. However, subsequent thereto, when the scheme of the Samiti came to be approved by the JDA on 13.06.1995, the land of the respondent no.1 came to be included in the facility area. Therefore, it was argued that as the plot in question, fell under the drawn out facility area as per the decision taken by the JDA on 13.06.1995, the same could not have been (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM) [2023/RJJP/011108] (3 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] allotted to the respondent no.1 for residential purposes. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. CWP No. 15150/2021 and Gulab Kothari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2017 (2) RLW 1178 (Raj.).
4. Relying upon the judgment(s) cited herein-above, learned counsel for the JDA submitted that once a plot/piece of land has been directed to be included in the facility area and is earmarked to be utilised as a 'park', then the same cannot be allotted by the JDA for residential purposes to the respondent no.1. In this regard, it was also categorically submitted that the factum of earmarking the land in question as facility area for being utilised as a 'park', reflects the categoric intention of the JDA to use the same for a public purpose and welfare of the society and the residents inhabiting the surrounding areas thereto. Lastly, learned counsel also submitted that the reliance placed by the Appellate Tribunal upon the minutes of the meeting dated 28.08.2002 was erroneous, as the same did not reflect a decision taken by the JDA regarding the land in question to be kept out of the facility area. Rather, the same was a mere recommendation qua the release of the said plot for the purpose of allotment as a residential area instead of a facility area. Thus, it was conclusively prayed that the allotment so made in favour of the respondent no.1, by the JDA Appellate Tribunal, is against the mandate of the law. Accordingly, learned counsel for the JDA prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the order dated 20.05.2009. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM)
[2023/RJJP/011108] (4 of 8) [CW-13586/2009]
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in SBCWP No. 16359/2018 titled as Janki Sharan Agarwal vs. Mohan Das Swami & Ors. and has submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is limited scope of judicial interference with a well-reasoned speaking order. Learned counsel submitted that under judicial review, interference can only be drawn in cases wherein the impugned order(s) suffer from a palpable error of law or the impugned order so passed has been adjudicated upon in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this background, it was submitted that the learned JDA Appellate Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order, wherein no palpable error of law or fact, is apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, while adjudication upon the matter, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as well. Furthermore, learned counsel has distinguished the judgments cited by the JDA in the case of Gulab Kotari (Supra) and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) and has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, the plot in question was not earmarked to be utilized and/or developed as a 'park'. The said fact is corroborated by the inaction on part of the JDA in developing the said plot for its alleged intended use as a 'park' and rather, the JDA has simply constructed a boundary wall surrounding the said plot. Moreover, the size of the plot in question does not meet out the stipulated spacial requirements of a 'park' and the same could not have been earmarked to be used for the said intention of development of a park. In this regard, it was submitted that the size of the said plot (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM) [2023/RJJP/011108] (5 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] in question is more akin to that of a residential space, than a park. To further corroborate the aforementioned arguments, learned counsel submitted that ever since the approval of the said scheme by the JDA, the latter has never furnished/extended any contract for the development of the said alleged park. Therefore, in the said peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, learned counsel submitted that the learned JDA Appellate Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order, which calls for no interference of this Court.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the respective sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar.
7. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a speaking order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India extends to keeping the subordinate courts/tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.:
(2020) 7 SCC 327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM) [2023/RJJP/011108] (6 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.
8. Upon a perusal of the record, it is made abundantly clear that vide allotment letter dated 07.08.1990 (Annexure R- 1/1), Plot No. 124-A admeasuring 488.85 sq. yards was allotted by the Pathik Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in favour of respondent no.1, along with the corresponding site plan wherein dimensions of the said Plot No. 124-A as well as the neighboring Plot Nos. 124 and 124-B were specified, which are illusory plots.
9. Furthermore, upon an analysis of the allotment letter (Annexure R-1/1) read with the application submitted by the respondent no.1 for her registration with the petitioner-JDA i.e. Application No.19808 (Annexure R-1/2), it is analyzed that the aforesaid Samiti had submitted a list allottees to the petitioner wherein the name of respondent no.1 was reflected on Page No.119 at Serial No.115 along with the allotment letter as well as the site plan. It is also revealed from the perusal of the minutes of the BPC Meeting dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure R-1/3), wherein the the issue of inclusion of the respondent no.1's land in the facility area was discussed, that the Building Plan Committee had decided that it would be appropriate to exclude the plot of the respondent no.1 from the facility area. In the said meeting, it was also noted that the President and Secretary of the said Samiti had allotted several plots in the names of their relatives, whilst avoiding allotment of plots to the real allottees as enumerated in the list, such as the respondent no.1.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM)
[2023/RJJP/011108] (7 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] 10. Thereafter, upon taking into consideration the
aforesaid, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order 20.05.2009, duly considered the minutes of the meeting dated 28.02.2002 as mentioned above whilst also considering and taking note of the size of the plot in question, which could not be used and/or developed as a 'park'. Moreover, it was also noted that no horticultural activities, to develop the said plot of land as a 'park' had been initiated therein. Rather, a simple boundary wall had been constructed surrounding the said plot. Thus, taking note of the aforesaid facts, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order.
11. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-JDA in the judgments passed in Gulab Kothari (Supra) and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) is misplaced and misconceived for the following reasons:-
a). That the plot in question i.e. Plot No. 124-A cannot be earmarked as a 'park' as it's dimensions do not meet out the spacial specifications required therewith for the same to be categorized as a 'park'.
b). That the name of respondent no.1 is specifically included in the list of allottees at Serial No.115.
c). That the size of the said plot in question is more akin to that of a residential space, than a park.
d). That ever since the approval of the said scheme by the JDA, the latter has never undertaken any horticultural activities for the development of the said plot as a 'park'.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM)
[2023/RJJP/011108] (8 of 8) [CW-13586/2009] Accordingly, the judgments of Gulab Kothari (supra) and Bhanwar Singh (supra) are applicable only on those plots of land which are earmarked and specified for common facility areas with open space and not the plot involved herein, which is more akin to a residential plot, than a 'park'.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at the only logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the Tribunal. The order impugned does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
13. For the reasons stated above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petitioner-JDA is directed to allot the said Plot No.124A to the respondent no.1, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. It is made clear that upon non-compliance of the directions issued herein-above, respondent no.1 will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings, for which, the erring officer shall be held personally responsible.
15. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /75 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:26:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)