Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan Housing Board vs Raj Aangan Society ... on 24 January, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:4121-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1041/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9307/2022
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Chairman, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. The Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Raj Aangan Society, (Registered Under The Provisions Of
Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958) Through Its
Secretary, Sanjay Harpavat, S/o Shri C.I. Harpavat, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o R-05, Raj Aangan Township, Nri
Colony, Sector-24, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Major R.P. Singh, Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan
Singh Shekhawat Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment
24/01/2024
1. Heard on admission.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would
strenuously urge before this Court that the learned Single Judge
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 10:28:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1041/2023]
while allowing the petition on the ground that common amenity
area has not been developed and residential tower is being
erected, has not appreciated in proper prospective, order dated
04.07.2013 passed earlier in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7007/2007.
The submission is that in the development project, all other
facilities like Club House, Cultural Center, Land Scape Garden,
Children's Park, School, Shops, Offices, Institutional Area & Water
Tank have already been developed and those areas are not being
used for development of any residential tower. He would submit
that the common amenities as proposed earlier at the time of
beginning of the project were, later on, found to be of no use
because of the proximity of the residential area with the Hospitals
and all kind of facilities. Therefore, in order to provide more and
more houses for the public, bonafide decision was taken to raise
residential tower.
3. The writ petition filed by the respondent-Society has been
allowed by the learned Single Judge by referring to the complete
project and the scheme of development prepared by the
appellants themselves and propagated, published for those who
were aspirants to purchase bungalows. The original scheme on the
face of it reserve an area as common amenity within plot area of
16235.84 square meter. The project scheme itself states as to
what are public amenities, which reads as under:-
"AMENITIES
Your neighbourhood at Raj Aangan will have provisions
for other facilities.....
Cultural Centre
Commercial Centre
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 10:28:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1041/2023]
Bank
Dispensary
Fire Protection System
Dedicated Communication Network
Cable Connection for Television
Waste Water Management System
Refuge Disposal
Laundry Service
ATM
Milk Booth
PCO
Creche
Travel Desk
Taxi Stand
Cyber Cafe"
4. It is not the case of the appellants that all these amenities
have already been developed at some other place within the same
residential area/project.
5. Earlier also, a dispute had arisen between the Society and
the Rajasthan Housing Board wherein, order was passed on
04.07.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7007/2007, which reads
as under:-
"Mr. H.D. Mathur, Resident Engineer, Rajasthan
Housing Board and O.I.C for respondent Rajasthan
Housing Board in the present case appears with Dr. P.C.
Jain, and submits that the Raj Aangan Scheme is now
being retrained as per its original plan and areas
ear-marked for garden and amenities not marked as
commercial in the original plan are not going to be
auctioned. It is submitted that only areas marked as
commercial in the original plan of the Raj Aangan
Scheme shall be auctioned.
In view of the statement of Mr. H.D. Mathur Mr.
Virendra Lodha, Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the writ petition be allowed as the reliefs sought in the writ petition are fully covered by the statement of the Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board.
Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Raj Aangan Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board situate at Jagatpura be retained as originally formulated and except for the then (Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 10:28:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1041/2023] marked commercial areas under the amenities of the scheme, no other property be put to auction by the Rajasthan Housing Board."
6. The aforesaid order binds both the parties and operate as res judicata. While the residents of the area are bound by the aforesaid order, the Rajasthan Housing Board is equally bound.
7. The aforesaid order came to be passed on the basis of undertaking given by the authorised officer of the Rajasthan Housing Board and the Officer-In-Charge of the case that Raj Aangan Scheme is now being retained as per its original plan and areas ear-marked for garden and amenities not marked as commercial in the original plan are not going to be auctioned. On the basis of the said statement before the Court, the writ petition was disposed off with the direction that Raj Aangan Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board situated at Jagatpura be retained as originally formulated and except for the then marked commercial areas under the amenities of the scheme, no other property be put to auction by the Rajasthan Housing Board.
8. Submission of learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the expression in the aforesaid order, "marked as commercial areas under the amenities of the scheme" refer to the area reserved for amenities. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission because the undertaking on which the writ petition came to be disposed off with such observations clearly referred to the original plan and areas ear-marked for garden and amenities not marked as commercial area under the original plan excluded from the process of auction. It is in this context, the observations made by the Court while disposing of the petition are construed. It (Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 10:28:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4121-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1041/2023] leaves no manner of doubt that the area reserved for amenities could not be used for raising residential tower.
9. In view of the above consideration, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-43 (Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 10:28:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)