w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Poonam Chand Kasliwal v/s Jaipur Development Authority & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 677 of 1986

    Decided On, 14 September 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. VERMA

    For the Appellant: S. Kasliwal, A. Kama, Advocates. For the Respondents: J.S. Rastogi, R.D. Rastogi, S.C. Mittal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

J.C. Verma, J.

1. The land possessed by the father of the petitioner Jagannath as owner measuring 2053 sq. yds. of having been acquired in the year 1934 by the then Jaipur State was ultimately compensated by way of allotment of three plots numbering A-19, B-37, B-38 to the petitioner in Janta Colony Scheme measuring 133 sq. yds. vide allotment order dated 2-4-1977. Even though before having been allotted the plots in Janta Colony Scheme, the petitioner had to suffer many other allotments in lieu of his acquiring of his original land and repeated cancellations and reallotments. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the plot having been given to him by the erstwhile Jaipur State in the year 1927. This land was acquired by the State in the year 1934 and he was allotted alternative land after about 28 years on 15-11-1961 measuring 1333.3 sq. yds., as comprising of plot No. A-53 Moti Doongri Scheme. This Mod Doongri Scheme allotment was also cancelled for apparently no reasons on 5-3-1977 by the Jaipur Development Authority and the matter having been

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

represented by the petitioner, he was once again compensated and was granted the allotment by way of compensation of the land acquired as stated above in the plots in Janta Colony Scheme as mentioned above. Possession of these plots were handed over on 2-4-1977.

2. Janta Colony Scheme was an approved and planned scheme by the UIT wherein number of plots were carved and the above said three plots were the approved plots of the scheme. The petitioner in order to construct on the plots had submitted the maps/plans to the authorities which were approved on 16-1-1980 vide Annexure-14. It is stated that within one month of the approval the petitioner started the construction on the said plot. Adjoining to the plots as per the map attached Annexures-8, 15, 16 and 17, there is a land of a Government Mental Hospital. The Management of the Government Mental Hospital started disputing the possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner in Janta Colony Scheme with the result that the petitioner had to file an injunction suit in the Civil Court and initially obtained a status quo order restraining the Mental Hospital to interfere in his possession. However, because of the reason that the interim status quo order was vacated later on, the petitioner did not pursue with the remedies of civil suit of injunction as stated by counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 25-10-1985, copy of which is attached as Annexure-18 to the writ petition when the Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA) had informed the-petitioner to the effect that the maps/ plans of construction as approved by the JDA on 16-1-1981 for constructing on Plot No. A-19, B-37 and B-38 in the Janta Colony, but on the information received from the management of the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, it has been found that the said plots are alleged to be in possession of the Mental Hospital and, therefore, the petitioner was told that the maps sanctioned for the construction of the plots are likely to be cancelled. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. Vide Annexure-19 dated 22-1-1986 the maps sanctioned were cancelled. The only ground for cancelling the maps was that the land in question is said to be in possession of the Mental Hospital as claimed by the Hospital. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexure-19 and the show cause notice Annexure-18 and has prayed that both the orders be quashed.

4. Written statement on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been filed. It is alleged that earlier plots allotted in Moti Doongri Scheme or anywhere else seem to be a manipulation. It is further submitted that in the map prepared by the UIT, the plot Nos. A-19, B-37 and B-38 of Janta Colony Scheme have wrongly been shown in the scheme whereas it should have been shown as a property of Mental Hospital. It is stated that the property in question belongs to the Mental Hospital for being in occupation of the same and the petitioner in connivance with the UIT or its subordinate staff has manipulated to get the most precious land of Mental Hospital of the main road of Jaipur. It is stated that earlier the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction, He was able to obtain an interim injunction which was vacated and even appeal filed against the interim order was also dismissed on 21-1-1984 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It is admitted that Janta Colony Scheme was approved by the State Government but in the scheme the area has been wrongly marked as plots.

5. A separate written statement had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is admitted that the plot Nos. A-19, B-37 and B-38 in Janta Colony Scheme were allotted to the petitioner in the month of March, 1977. It is also admitted that the plans were approved by the authorities for constructing the house. However, it is stated that for the reasons that the mental hospital was in possession of the land in question, therefore, the impugned order Annexure-19 was passed and for the reason that the question of possession was a disputed question of fact, the petitioner had earlier movFed a civil suit. It is stated that the JDA had ample powers to pass an order u/s 30 of the JDA Act and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities.

6. From the pleadings and admitted facts of the parties and Annexures attached with the writ petition and the written statements, the following facts are virtually not disputed and stands admitted.

(1) Annexure-1 is a document showing ownership of certain land as given to the father of the petitioner in the year 1927.

(2) Annexure-3 a letter dated 27-11-1949 wherein Jagannath had been informed that the State desires to acquire his land and, therefore, he was given an option to select any of the first class plots from the plots mentioned in the letter.

(3) Annexure-4 is a letter of allotment of plot No. A-53 situated in Moti Doongri Scheme. The letter had been issued by the UIT. The area has also been mentioned as 1333.3 Sq. yds. vide Annexure-5 in November, 1961. The area of the plot was demarcated in Moti Doongri Scheme and the petitioner was directed to take the possession of the same. The petitioner had also been asked to start construction in the Moti Doongri Scheme. As per Annexure- 6 another decision was taken for allotting alternative plot to the petitioner in place of earlier plot. To similar respect is the letter Annexure- 9 of allotment of the plots in question to the petitioner by the UIT Jaipur on 5-3-1977 and the possession had also been delivered.

(4) Annexure-14 is the order approving the construction plans.

(5) Maps have been attached with the writ petition and also with the written statement to show that in the scheme framed by the UIT, these three plots have been shown in the plan map of approved Janta Colony Scheme.

7. From the above facts, it is very clear that the petitioner had been compensated in lieu of plots owned by him which were acquired by the State. The plots are situated in the planned scheme and are earmarked, as such maps have been approved. Even though this Court is not to decide the question of title in between the parties, if the title is disputed, but in the present case so far the title of the petitioner is concerned, that stands established by way of allotment letter issued to the petitioner which had been placed on record as Annexures and the possession of the same had also been given for which approval for construction was also accorded by way of sanctioning of the maps vide Annexure-14. From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner had a complete title on the property in question. The maps have also been seen by me. There is a building of Mental Hospital and then in front of the building there is a 100 ft. wide road and on the other side of the road there are servant quarters of the Mental Hospital and adjoining the servant quarters towards West there are the plots carved i.e. Plot Nos. A-19 and B-37 to B-56. There is a small approach road towards South of the servant quarters of the aforesaid plots and again there are servant quarters and the carved plots by the UIT towards the West of the servant quarters. The plots A-11 and A-19 and B-36 to B-56 are symmetrically in one line. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that as a matter of fact because of the reason that the Mental Hospital had started fencing wire towards the East of the plot in question and, therefore, the Mental Hospital was entitled to retain the possession. It goes without saying that nothing has been brought on record here even in this Court to show about the ownership or showing any paper of title of me Mental Hospital in regard to plots in question nor any map showing the demarcation of the area at the initial allotment of Mental Hospital has been placed on record. But because of the reason that if the question of possession or title was being disputed by the Mental Hospital management and on being threatened by the UIT for allotment of the said plots to the petitioner, the Mental Hospital ought to have resorted to establish its title in the appropriate forum which has not been done by it. The petitioner admittedly having been allotted the plots which plots are developed plots in the Moti Doongri Scheme of UIT and have been allotted in lieu and as a compensation by the earlier plots acquired by the State, the petitioner does have a right to safeguard his interest in the property.

8. The authorities had rightly passed and sanctioned the maps. After having so sanctioned, only because of the reasons that some third party claims the possession of the property in dispute which property belongs to the UIT or JDA, the authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the maps on the so-called alleged possession of Mental Hospital. From the record, title of the petitioner was not disputed and once the UIT or the JDA allots the plot to a allottee, a title is conferred on such allottee which title cannot be taken away only because of the reason that some other person claims possession of the land. However, in the present case title or allotment of the plots still with the petitioner which is admitted fact. There was no justification for the respondent-authorities to have cancelled the sanction of the plots on the reasons given in Annexure-19.

9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is to be allowed and show cause notice Annexure-18 and Annexure-19 impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be borne by the JDA who had passed the orders Annexures-18 and 19.

The writ petition is allowed as aforesaid.

O R