Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Om Prakash Gupta vs The J D A And Anr on 2 March, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3997/2009
Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged 40 years, by
caste Mahajan, R/o B-45, Vijay Nagar-II, Kartarpura, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg Marg, Jaipur through its Secretary.
2. The Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr Lokesh Parihar Mr Jagdish Nagar For Respondent(s) : Mr Punit Singhvi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment 02/03/2017 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
It is a case where pursuant to the application invited by (2 of 3) [CW-3997/2009] the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA'), petitioner applied for allotment of plot in E category. It is after showing his income to be Rs.10,000/-per month. Subsequent to the advertisement, JDA issued corrigendum indicating that a person having income between 12,000/- to 20,000/- per month would fall in the category E thus a liberty was given to correct the group. The petitioner did not correct the group despite the fact that he was not falling in E category pursuant to the corrigendum. The lottery was drawn in favour of the petitioner but he was not falling in E category thus allotment was not made.
It is also a fact that during pendency of the appeal before the tribunal, JDA issued a letter to the petitioner giving an opportunity to opt for the category he belongs. It was in view of availability of one plot in category D. The petitioner did not respond to the letter dated 5.9.2008, hence allotment of plot in the category to which petitioner belongs could not be made.
The tribunal has considered all the issues and finding that petitioner was not falling in E category thus claim for allotment of plot does not arise. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner was, in fact, having liberty to opt for allotment of plot in the category to which he was belonging i.e. category D and, now, the period intervening is of more than 8 (3 of 3) [CW-3997/2009] years thus I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order.
The petitioner cannot justify his claim for allotment of plot in E category based on subsequent Income Tax Return . In fact, group is required to be seen on the date of the application and, according to the petitioner himself, his income was Rs.10,000/- per month thus subsequent returns could not have been taken into consideration.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed having no merit.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. bnsharma