Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The defendant No. 1 Jaipur Development Authority, in its written statement, came out with the pleadings that the land in dispute is a public park, which vests in the Urban Development Trust (UIT) and is a land of public use for the residents of the (4 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] colony and there is neither any title, nor any possession of the plaintiffs. Thakur Raj Singh, during his lifetime, decided to develop residential colony and at that time, he had surrendered the land in dispute for public use and the same is being used for that purpose, therefore, the UIT is legally entitled to develop the park. The land in dispute as well as "Hoj", "Dhore", "Fountain" and all other articles lying therein have vested in the UIT. It was also pleaded that in the year 1958 itself, Thakur Raj Singh had prepared a development plan under which residential and commercial plots were divided and sold. On 01.01.1958, Thakur Raj Singh had submitted layout plan along with letter dated 01.01.1958 to the then Commissioner of Nagar Parishad, Jaipur, wherein he stated that the existing garden comprising of well etc. is being surrendered for the common use of the residents of the colony going to be developed after sale of residential plots and after grant of necessary permission of the road construction and garden comprised therein, would be available for public use. Thakur Raj Singh again submitted application seeking sanction of sub division of plots before the UIT along with map and also submitted stamped agreement on 08.02.1960 giving undertaking to develop the colony as per the law. Finally on 10.09.1965, UIT granted sanction for sub division of plots and upon such sanction granted for sub division, all the lands, garden and open land vested in UIT, therefore, interest, if any, of the plaintiffs in the property had extinguished and the defendant no. 1 UIT (now Jaipur Development Authority) is in possession.

25. Section 29 of UIT Act is not applicable as that relates to framing of scheme by UIT on its own which already vests in UIT or is acquired by UIT for the purpose of scheme, as is clear from Section 29, sub-section 2(a) which provides for acquisition of land for the scheme. Present is a case of sub-division of plots by the owner Thakur Raj Singh who submitted letter on 01.01.1958 along with the lay out plan in which land in dispute was shown and surrendered as park for the colony.

(17 of 49) [SAC-33/1997]

26. The Rules of 1964 have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 74 (bb) of the UIT Act and it relates to sub-division, re-constitution and development of private property which does not belong to the trust. Therefore, present is not a case of framing of scheme by the UIT under Section 29 of the UIT Act, but sub- division of plots by the owner of the land by surrender of certain lands including the disputed land as park.

27. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents are as below:

57. DW-1/B, Durga Shankar Purohit has been examined as independent witness on whose evidence much emphasis has been laid to lay foundation to the case of the defendants. In his evidence, this witness has deposed that Thakur Raj Singh had developed Raj Nagar Colony and he had purchased Plot No.D-63. According to him, he further deposed that Thakur Raj Singh got approved sub-division of plots in the colony as per Map Exhibit-A- 1/1 and the land O, P, Q, R was reserved for public park. According to this witness, when he purchased plot, Map Exhibit-A- 1/1 was shown to him by Thakur Raj Singh that area/space for park and road has been left and only after having seen that Map Exhibit-A-1/1, he had purchased the plot. He deposed that on 01.01.1958, Thakur Raj Singh had submitted a letter to Nagar Parishad and another letter was also submitted by him in 1959. He deposed that he recognises the signature of Thakur Raj Singh on Exhibit-A/2 in which he has also signed as one of the witness and proved his signatures. He further deposed that letter also bears signatures of Durlabh Ram & Shyam Sunder Kothari. He (37 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] further deposed that all of them had signed the documents. Referring to Exhibit-A/2, he deposed that Thakur Raj Singh had signed in his presence stating that the same is to be submitted before the UIT (JDA). As per this witness, Exhibit-A/3 is the certified copy obtained by him from Nagar Parishad and the original was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh. According to him, the scheme was approved by Chief Town Planner in 1961. He has also produced letter of the Chief Town Planner, Exhibit-1/2. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that approval of sub-division of plot was after purchase of plot by him and that very sub- division, plan was shown earlier by Thakur Raj Singh, He has not produced the copy of sale deed through which he purchased the plot and stated that as other purchasers have submitted their sale deed and as all were printed containing the same language, therefore, he has not produced his sale deed. According to him, this witness purchased the plot from Thakur Raj Singh in December, 1957 and for the first time in 1957, Thakur Raj Singh submitted map with the UIT followed by subsequent submission of Map in 1958. He admitted that Thakur Raj Singh had not given any letter to him regarding park, but he had submitted letter with UIT, which was shown to him, which contained area specified for park. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that though before sale of plot to him by Thakur Raj Singh, the map of entire colony was given to him, but he has not produced the same because at that time, it was not approved.