Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rameshwar Meena vs J D A And Ors on 12 August, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1183/2015
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO.901/2015
IN
S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.297/2015
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10288/2015
RAMESHWAR MEENA VS. JDA & ORS.
DATE OF ORDER : : 12th August, 2016
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
*******
Shri Sandeep Sharma for the appellant ## This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2015. The appeal is barred by limitation having been filed with delay of 71 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that delay occurred because prior to filing the appeal, appellant filed review petition, which was dismissed on 16.10.2016 and if filing of the appeal is counted from that date, the appeal would be within time.
Having regard to the facts stated in the application, the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed and the appeal is heard on merits.
Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for the 2 appellant has argued that there does not actually exist any housing colony on the land of old khasra no.81 (new nos.190-193), which, in fact, was owned by the appellant and that the Rajhans Housing Cooperative Society wrongly claimed to have set up Meena colony on such land, which fact is borne out from the letter of Deputy Commissioner, Zone-4, JDA, Jaipur dated 7.7.2015. Learned Single Judge has erred in law in not considering that fact. It was on the complaint of the appellant that the shops constructed on the aforesaid land were sealed, but the JDA Appellate Tribunal has ordered to de-seal the aforesaid shops. The learned Single Judge ought to therefore interfere with the order passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal and directed restoration of possession of the land to the appellant.
Perusal of the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge indicates that on complaint by the appellant dated 9.6.2015, JDA issued notice u/s.34 of the JDA Act, 2010 and subsequently started sealing process in respect of the plot no.96. It was thereafter that respondent nos.3 to 6 filed appeal before the JDA Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has directed opening of the seal. The appellant though claims ownership of plot no.96 and 97 as stated in para 2 of the writ 3 petition, whereas according to respondent-JDA, the Government acquired the land of these plots. On this, the stand of the appellant has been that Government never paid compensation to the appellant. Be that as it may. The matter involves several disputed questions of fact. The appellant ought to have approach the JDA Appellate Tribunal or the concerned civil court, wherever his remedy lies, by instituting fresh case for adjudication of the dispute and determination of his rights. If the appellant is able to show that civil court has jurisdiction over this matter, it would be for him to approach the civil court for vindication of his rights. It is for the concerned forum to call for the entire record and ascertain whether actually the land is owned by the appellant or whether it has been acquired by the Government and if acquired, whether appellant has been paid compensation and if not paid, what is his entitlement.
With that liberty and observations, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dinesh Chandra Somani),J. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. RS/2