Suraj Nagar vs State of Rajasthan

Instant Public Interest Petition has been filed by a registered society namely; Suraj Nagar (West) & Income Tax Colony, Welfare & Development Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958 and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1-Society and resident of Jaipur.

The grievance of the Society by filing instant petition confines to Plot No. 1, Ganga Path, Suraj Nagar (West), measuring 731.50 Sq. Mts.

Allotment cum possession letter was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority to the title holder of the subject plot and all other necessary formalities, which have to be followed by a plot holder, are indisputably being complied with.

The grievance of the petitioner-Society in filing instant petition is that the permission, which has been granted by the JDA to the holder/occupier of the subject plot vide order dt. 19/06/2013 for raising construction as per the approved plans, is not a valid permission under the law. According to the Society, jurisdiction of the subject colony was transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and at the relevant point of time, when the permission was granted, JDA was not holding any authority to grant permission and such permission granted by the JDA dt. 19/06/2013, cannot be considered to be a valid permission in the eyes of law.

It has been further submitted that even if it is considered that valid permission was granted by the JDA, still the construction is not being raised as per the approved/sanctioned plan and there are various diversions and violations and on a complaint submitted, physical verification was made and a UO note was prepared signed by the Additional Town Planner on 03/10/2013 but no action thereafter was taken. It has been further submitted that the opening of the subject plot in question is on 30 ft. wide road and if such permission is executed to construct flats, even under the JDA bye-laws, it will disturb peace of the local residents & members of the Society and as regards the other plots, where the commercial activities are going on, the Society is vigilant and taking action which the law permits but the ultimate goal of the Society is that no commercial activity is permitted in a residential colony and if multi-storied flats are permitted on these residential plots, it will be a hazardous and will be difficult for the residents to pass on their vehicles. It has been further submitted that the respondents be restrained from raising construction over the subject plot in question and as regards the title and other ancillary conditions are concerned, the Society is not concerned to raise objection.

Respondent No. 6, appearing in person, submits that power of attorney has been executed in his favour by plot holder namely; Vinayak Joshi and after taking due approval from the JDA as per the Building Bye-laws, permission was granted by the JDA on 19/06/2013 and submits that the construction has been raised as per the approved plans and he undertakes that there shall be no violation or contravention of the approved plans. He further submits that personal dispute of the society with one of the individual, who too is a plot holder, does not fall within the purview of Public Interest and it is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law in entertaining instant petition since the public is not even remotely concerned except the local residents of the colony. He further submits that when the Society and its members started restraining the respondents from raising construction, despite complying with the conditions incorporated by the JDA while granting permission in its letter dt. 19/06/2013, the respondent was compelled to approach the Civil Court for obtaining mandatory injunction and restraining the members of the Society not to interfere in the peaceful functioning and making obstacles in the construction which he is raising in terms of the approved plans and submits that in the civil suit filed by him alongwith application for temporary injunction, the petitioner/defendants were restrained by the ld. Civil Court vide order dt. 06/09/2013 and submits that the temporary injunction is still operative. This fact has been referred to and mentioned in the writ petition but no action was taken either by the Society or its members against the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent by the Civil Court and further submits that if the respondent is raising construction in terms of the approved building plans and the present petitioners are defendants in the Civil Suit, have been restrained vide order dt. 06/09/2013 by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the instant Public Interest Petition, filed in such sub-judice matters, even otherwise is not maintainable and what is being prayed for is without substance and deserves rejection.

We have heard the parties and also perused the material on record.

As regards the subject plot is concerned, there is no dispute amongst the parties in regard to its title or the other conditions regarding allotment of Patta to the plot holder. It is brought to our notice that after granting permission to the plot holder by the JDA as per JDA Building Bye-laws vide order dt. 19/06/2013, there is change in the building bye-laws at later stage but it is not disputed that when the application was submitted seeking permission of the JDA for approval of the building plans and sanction was granted to the respondents it is as per the bye-laws which were invogue at the relevant point of time.

We find substance in the submission made by the respondent that merely because the local residents of the Society have grievance on the construction being raised by the respondent over the subject plot after seeking permission from the competent authority i.e. JDA, in the facts of the instant case, jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by filing Public Interest Petition and if any individual has any grievance, that can always be raised before the appropriate forum which the law permits but the individual disputes between the parties cannot be raised in the guise of Public Interest.

We further find substance in the submission made by the respondents that once application for permanent injunction alongwith temporary injunction was filed by the respondent-plot holder before the Civil Court and interim injunction has been granted to him on 06/09/2013 and the respondent-plot holder proceeds in terms of the injunction granted to him by the Civil Court and if at the same time the parties to the dispute or the defendants, in the pending Civil Suit, have any objection/grievance, they can certainly avail remedy which the law permits but invoking jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant Public Interest Petition, cannot be said to be an appropriate forum so as to call for interference.

Further submission of the petitioners that the approved building plan by the JDA is not in terms of the existing bye-laws, may not be of any substance for the reason that change of building bye-laws has been given effect in September, 2013 and what will be the effect on the plan approved at the relevant point of time, when the bye-laws were invogue vis-a-vis the change which has been given effect to and as to whether the changed bye-laws would be applicable over the plans which were already approved under the existing bye-laws, may be a question for consideration but we are not supposed to express our opinion in the facts of the instant case, particularly, in the instant petition filed in the form of PIL.

As regards the objection raised by the petitioners that the construction raised by the respondent-plot holder is in contravention of the approved building loans, if that being so, the petitioners are always at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits. However, the respondent No. 6, present in person, submits that he will see that there should not be any violation on their part and the construction is raised strictly in terms of the approved building plans.

Taking note of the submissions made by the parties, we are not inclined to entertain the instant PIL and the same is accordingly dismissed and the parties are at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits.