Ramsahay Yadav vs Jaipur Development Authority

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.02.2021, passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby prayer for interim relief, sought by the petitioner, has been declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially given notice dated 23.01.2016, wherein it was informed to him that he had

made encroachment on sector road between Plot Nos. 88 & 89.

Learned counsel submitted that said notice, issued to the petitioner was put to challenge before the Appellate Tribunal and vide order dated

28.01.2016, appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and direction was given to the JDA to give proper notice to the petitioner under Section 72 of

the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDA Act') and further, an opportunity of hearing was to be given to the

petitioner before taking any action of removal of the alleged encroachment.

Learned counsel submitted that again, notice dated 10.03.2016 was given to the petitioner invoking powers under Section 72 of the JDA Act. The

petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the said notice, filed Appeal No. 228/2016 and Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 23.09.2019, set aside the

notice dated 10.03.2016, and gave direction to the JDA Authorities to comply with the earlier order dated 28.01.2016 passed in Appeal No.33/2016

and the directions, given earlier were also required to be followed.

Learned counsel submitted that the JDA again issued notice to the petitioner dated 05.02.2021 directing him to remove the encroachment within a

period of seven days.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no option except to challenge the said notice dated 05.02.2021 before the JDA Appellate Authority

by filing appeal No.90/2021.

Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned order dated 11.02.2021, the Appellate Tribunal has fixed the appeal for final arguments on

22.04.2021, however, the prayer of granting stay/interim order has been declined without any justification.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not made any encroachment and the allegation that petitioner has constructed over the sector road,

by constructing kaccha/pucca house, is also not correct and as such, learned counsel refers to the photographs (Annexure-9) for perusal of this Court.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and his family members have been occupying the said place and there has been no encroachment or

violation of any JDA bye-laws.

Learned counsel further submitted that the JDA Authorities, in routine manner, issue notices without giving reasons, as in what manner, the petitioner

has made encroachment over the sector road.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has revenue record in his favour and as such, his name is duly recorded in the jamabandi of samvat

2070-2073.

Learned counsel submitted that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and their family members and if, in unilateral manner, the land, on which

the petitioner has rightful claim, is made as the sector road, the petitioner cannot be bound by the same.

Learned counsel submitted that the JDA Tribunal has not considered the relevant parameters for grant of interim injunction and without considering

the entire facts of the case, the stay petition has been rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Appellate Tribunal, while passing the order dated 11.02.2021, has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not able to show

any document, as in what capacity, he was occupying the land or made construction thereon.

This Court further finds that the Appellate Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the petitioner has not challenged any part of decision of the JDA

where the sector road was shown.

This Court further finds that the petitioner was not able to show, prima facie, any document in his favour that he was the rightful owner of the plot in

question, i.e., Plot No.-89B.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the JDA Authorities are acting in arbitrary manner and no reasons are assigned, suffice it to

say by this Court that the petitioner, time and again, has been informed that he has made encroachment over the sector road and he does not have any

title of the property in question and as such, after serving notices to the petitioner, action has been taken by the JDA Authorities and it cannot be said

that the Appellate Tribunal is bound to pass interim order on the present facts of the case.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice, which is given to the petitioner at earlier point of time, did not meet the

requirement of principle of natural justice, as no reasons have been assigned at any point of time and Authorities are bent upon to dispossess the

petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner does not have any document or proof with respect to his entitlement of the land in question but he is

always free to bring into notice the relevant documents to the Appellate Tribunal, where the main matter is subjudice.

This Court does find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.