Jaipur Development Authority vs Sheetal Tambi

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 05.04.2013, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur which allowed the respondent-appellant''s (hereinafter "the appellant") appeal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter "the Act of 1982"), quashed the JDA''s letter/order dated 19.11.2010 and directed it to take into consideration the Tribunal''s decision between the year 2000 and 18.02.2009 and in terms of the Appellate Tribunal''s judgment dated 06.09.2005 and 18.02.2009, issue a lease-deed in favour of the appellant within a period of three months, failing which the appellant was at liberty to take proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the officers of the JDA for non-compliance with the Appellate Tribunal''s orders as also if so advised claim damages against the JDA.

The facts of the case are that the appellant filed an appeal bearing No. 5/2011 against the JDA alleging that she had purchased plot No. 225 from its erstwhile owner and original allottee, Shri Vishwa Ratan Bhargava under agreement dated 20.11.1996. The said plot was situated in Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur in Scheme No. 22, floated by Sindhu Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Simiti Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter "the Society"). It was stated that the appellant had earlier filed a reference bearing No. 74/2000 whereupon the JDA Tribunal vide its order dated 19.07.2001 restrained the JDA from laying any road through plot No. 225 and further that the appellant not be dispossessed therefrom. The JDA not complying with the order dated 19.07.2001, the appellant moved a contempt petition bearing No. 33/2004 before the Appellate Tribunal stating that despite its order dated 19.07.2001, ''Patta'' for plot No. 225, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur was not being issued to her. The contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2004 for the reason that there being no specific direction to issue a lease-deed to the appellant, no contravention of the Appellate Tribunal''s order was made out. In the circumstances, the appellant filed yet another reference bearing No. 420/04 submitting that in terms of the Appellate Tribunal''s earlier order dated 19.07.2001, the Zonal Level Committee in its meeting dated 06.12.2003 had deleted the proposed road over plot No. 225, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. Yet in spite of the Appellate Tribunal''s earlier order dated 19.07.2001 protecting the appellant''s possession over the plot No. 225, she was arbitrarily not being issued a lease-deed in respect thereof even while the plot in issue was not a part of facility area but part of plotted area in Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur as approved by the JDA on a lay out plan submitted by the society". Vide order dated 06.09.2005, the Appellate Tribunal again allowed the second reference bearing No. 420/2004 and directed the JDA to issue a lease-deed in favour of the appellant as per law. It was stated that however even following the order dated 06.09.2005, passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the appellant''s reference No. 420/2004, she was informed vide JDA''s letter dated 27.05.2006 that since the allotment of plot No. 225 aforesaid was made by the Society, the lease-deed in respect thereof could only be issued, despite the Appellate Tribunal''s order dated 06.09.2005, on the appellant''s establishing her physical possession over the plot in question.

The letter dated 27.05.2006, in the circumstances, came to be challenged by the appellant in the third round of litigation in Appeal No. 108/2007. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2009 set aside the aforesaid letter dated 27.05.2006, issued by the JDA and directed that the lease-deed be issued to the appellant for plot No. 225 in Scheme No. 22, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur as floated by the Society and approved by JDA. It was further directed that in the event of there indeed being a road laid over the said plot allotted to the appellant, she be allotted another compensatory plot in exchange by JDA and further that in the event, the JDA were yet not to allot a plot to the appellant, the appellant would be at liberty to file a suit for damages before the competent court. The appellant stated that following the order dated 18.02.2009, she approached the JDA to comply with the Tribunal''s directions but the JDA once again vide letter dated 19.11.2010 informed her that it was not in the position to issue a lease-deed over the plot to the appellant for the reason that the appellant had an alternative recourse to a suit for damages as per the Appellate Tribunal''s order dated 18.02.2009 in Appeal No. 108/2007. The letter dated 19.11.2010 again triggered a fourth round of litigation under appeal bearing No. 5/2011 at the instance of the appellant on the count that the said letter was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Appellate Tribunal''s order dated 18.02.2009, aside of being in contempt of its directions. The JDA opposed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 05.04.2013 allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be issued a lease-deed in respect of plot No. 225 in issue. Hence this petition.

Mr. Mahendra Goyal, appearing for the petitioner-JDA has submitted that the impugned order dated 05.04.2013 is unsustainable for the reason that in terms of the Appellate Tribunal''s earlier judgment dated 18.02.2009 in the appeal preferred by the appellant, she had the alternative of laying a suit for damages against the non-issue of lease-deed to her pertaining the plot No. 225 in the approved Scheme No. 22, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur floated by the Society. It was submitted that the appellant not admittedly being in physical possession of the aforesaid plot, in terms of the instructions issued by the JDA in its guideline for regularization of plots and grant of lease-deeds, it was not permissible to issue a lease-deed to applicant who was not in physical possession of the plot allotted to her by the Society albeit a letter of allotment had indeed been issued to her following purchase from the original allottee of the Society. Counsel submitted that the appellant had the liberty in terms of the earlier order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Appellate Tribunal to lay a suit for damages for non-issue of lease-deed and the Appellate Tribunal earlier having addressed the appellant''s appeal with regard to the issue of lease-deed for plot in issue and its order dated 18.02.2009 having become final, it was not for the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the subsequent appeal bearing No. 5/2011 afresh and modify its earlier order and instead mandatorily bind the JDA to issue a lease-deed to the appellant vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2013.

Mr. Giriraj Bardhar with Mr. Umesh Duby, appearing for the appellant submits that the facts of the case indicate the harassment to which the appellant has been put by the JDA consequent to which she had to approach the JDA Appellate Tribunal by way of two reference petitions under Section 83(8) of the Act of 1982 and the two appeals under Section 83(8)(a) thereof. Counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that in terms of the judgment passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal in reference No. 74/2000 on 19.07.2001, the Zonal Level Committee, JDA in its meeting of 06.12.2003 had deleted the approved road over plot No. 225. It was submitted that it is also an admitted fact that the appellant has got the plot transferred to herself from the erstwhile allottee of plot No. 225 and consequent letter of allotment in her own name issued by the Society--coming into a valid title. Counsel submits that the physical possession of the plot of which the appellant holds the allotment letter issued by the Society is not a sine qua non for issue of a lease-deed. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Circular No. dated 10.07.1999 wherein in clause 2, on the issue of regularization, it has been provided that the regularization of plot issued by a Housing Cooperative Society would inter alia be on the basis of constructive possession which would be considered as obtaining with the allottee, in the event the allottee was able to furnish to the JDA an allotment letter issued by the concerned Society or other related documents of ownership. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the case of the JDA that the appellant is not in possession of the plot in issue consequent to which a lease-deed cannot be issued to her is wholly untenable. It was submitted that the subsequent appeal No. 5/2011 to the Appellate Tribunal was maintainable inasmuch as the appellant was aggrieved of the letter dated 19.11.2010 which stated that the appellant could not be issued the lease-deed for reason of not being in actual physical possession. JDA letter dated 19.11.2010 furnished a fresh cause of action to the appellant, consequent to which an appeal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982 was maintainable. It was finally prayed that as the petitioner has been running from pillar to post for the last over 15 years and there is no legally sustainable ground available to the JDA to deny her the issue of a lease-deed in respect of plot No. 225 despite the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

It is not in dispute that the Maharana Pratap Nagar Residential Scheme of the Grah Nirman Sahakari Simiti Ltd., Jaipur has been approved by the JDA. It is also not in dispute that consequent to the order dated 19.07.2001, the Zonal Level Committee in its meeting of 06.12.2003 has deleted the proposed road over the plot No. 225, in Scheme No. 22, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has in her name the letter of allotment issued by the Society on having purchased it from the erstwhile allottee of the society. The circular dated 10.07.1999 provides that one of the basis of regularization of allotment made by the Housing Cooperative Society could be the allotment letter issued by the Society which would evidence possession of the allottee. This, in my opinion, is conclusive of the matter. More particularly as it is nobody''s case that another person is in possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner following its purchase from the erstwhile allottee. In this view of the matter, I find that even the instructions issued by the JDA in its guideline for regularization of plots for issue of lease-deed would stand satisfied on the appellant furnishing a valid letter of allotment by the Society. Alternatively the circular dated 10.07.1999 would override the instructions. The appellant cannot in the circumstances of the case, detailed above, be said to be not in constructive possession.

For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to find any perversity, illegality or misdirection in law in the impugned order dated 05.04.2013, passed by the Appellant Tribunal.

Consequently, the writ petition is without force.

Dismissed.