M/s. Safe Infra Projects (P) Ltd. vs Jaipur Development Authority and Another

Alok Sharma

The petitioner is aggrieved of a variety issues which inter alia relate to arbitrary action of the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter ''JDA'') in seeking to intercede at the instance of his neighbour one Smt. Sushila Sharma in the exercise of its powers under Sections 32 & 33 of the JDA Act 1982. The case of the petitioner is that his neighbour one Smt. Sushila Sharma resident of Plot No. 169, Taruchaya Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur has filed a suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur alleging the construction of the petitioner at Plot No. 170, Taruchaya Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur was contrary to the JDA Building Bye-laws. The said suit is admittedly pending. It is submitted that even while the petitioner was taking steps to contest the said suit, the JDA has issued notices under Sections 32/33 of the JDA Act, 1982 and also on repeated occasions exercised its jurisdiction arbitrarily in demolishing the petitioner''s construction over his plot No. 170, Taruchaya Nagar, Tonk Road and also seizing and taking away building material and implements before return to the petitioner on payment of the requisite penalty which according to the petitioner was not even properly accounted for. The further case of the petitioner is that the JDA exercises its power to stop unauthorized constructions only selectively and it is an universal knowledge that large parts of Jaipur City are built in contravention of the extant JDA building Bye-laws during the past 30 decades since the incorporation of the JDA. Counsel for the petitioner would therefore propagate the petitioner''s "right to equality" and seek a direction from this Court to similarity of treatment for the petitioner on being similarly allowed to make constructions over his plot without obstruction by the JDA exercising its statutory powers.

In the context of the aforesaid averments/submissions, following prayers have been made in the writ petition:

a. Issue writ/order/directions to respondent No. 1 & 2 to follow rule of law.

b. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions to respondent No. 2 to investigate into the complaints made by the petitioner/petitioner''s counsel against the officers in enforcement wing, and pending investigation the concerned officers be transferred out lest they tamper with the evidence and influence the investigation.

c. Issue writ/order/directions to respondent No. 1 to pay damages of Rs. 50.00 lakh for loss of property and goodwill and interest on damages at commercial borrowing rates of industries for delay in compensation.

d. Give liberty to the petitioner to claim his residual intangible losses against the respondents through other legal channels.

I heave heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition.

It is an admitted fact that there is ongoing litigation between one Sushila Devi petitioner''s neighbour and the petitioner, where the petitioner after due service is already contesting the suit. It is also not in dispute that in terms of Section 83(8) of the JDA Act 1982, any action of the JDA including an order or notice is capable of being remedied by taking proceedings before the JDA Appellate Tribunal. So far the case of the petitioner is that a large part of Jaipur City has been constructed upon and developed without compliance with the extant JDA Building Bye-laws, it is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution of India only propagates and protects positive equality and not negative equality.

In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition in view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner if he is aggrieved of the action and inaction of the JDA and the pending litigation between the petitioner and his neighbour Smt. Sushila Sharma before the civil court and also on the ground that this Court cannot issue a writ for propagating a breach of laws merely because it is alleged that others have similarly done so. Further, it does not appear from the file that the petitioner has any construction plans approved by the JDA as it mandate u/s 17 of the JDA Act 1982 for the purpose of undertaking any development activities on his plot.

For the reasons stated above, I find no force in the present petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner however is free to avail his remedies as available in law. Stay application also stands dismissed.