JUDGMENT 1. - This is a case of its own type, we deem it necessary to give the facts of the case in detail. There is one plot, B-38, Janta Store, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. It was auctioned and respondent No. 6 Nanag Ram was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted. it appears that Nanag Ram, respondent No. 6 before the possession could be delivered to him by the UIT-,entered into possession of the plot and also raised kachcha construction Kachcha shop is said to have been given on rent to the petitioner. A suit was filed by the petitioner in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur City in the year 1983 and an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed and there was ex parte injunction restraining the respondent No. 6 from dispossessing the petitioner. That injunction was confirmed but on appeal the learned appellate court prima facie could not come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant, though it did not say whether he was in possession in any capacity or not. The appeal was allowed and there is no dispute that on revision the order of the appellate court was upheld by this Court. The petitioner continued in possession but it appears that after the aforesaid civil suit was filed by the petitioner and the trial court issued injunction as aforesaid in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 filed an application before the JDA as by then the JDA had taken the place of UIT and prayed that the possession of the plot which has been auctioned may be given. By than he had paid all the dues to the JDA. The proceedings started and ultimately on getting a report that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant of plot No. B-38, the petitioner was dispossessed by the JDA. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 182/1966 to which, both the respondent No. 6 and JDA were arrayed as respondents. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition under its order dated January 9, 1987 but made some observations to which reference shall be made at the latter stage of this order. It directed the JDA to put the petitioner back in possession of the plot No. B-38 and also awarded a sum of Rs. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition under its order dated January 9, 1987 but made some observations to which reference shall be made at the latter stage of this order. It directed the JDA to put the petitioner back in possession of the plot No. B-38 and also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the petitioner from the JDA. After the aforesaid decision of this court as this court left this question open whether the JD -X could or could not take possession, it appears that the JDA again dispossessed the petitioner on Oct. 26, l988 and the petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the JDA and claimed re-delivery of the possession. 3. In the order of this Court dated Jan 9, 1987 in the aforesaid writ petition the court has said that there is no dispute that a shop was constructed by Nanag Ram (respondent No. 4 in that case) and there is a dispute between the petitioner and said Nanag Ram about their relationship which has been contested by them in a suit filed by Nanag Ram in the court of Addl. Munsif No. 2 Jaipur This Court came to the conclusion that a shop had been constructed by Nanag Kam on the plot in dispute. In the aforesaid order this court also made reference to the reply filed by the respondent No. 6 to the injunction application of the petitioner in the aforesaid civil suit and the court said that- 'This application was contested by Nanag Ram. In the reply the defendant contended that he was in possession of the shop as of right and he has absolute right to raise construction over it and that the plaintiff was a servant with him. As it appeared to the court that the petitioner had been wrongly dispossessed the writ petition was allowed and in the ultimate para it was observed by the court that - "It will be open to the respondent No. 2 to make an enquiry against the officer and the employees concerned for fixing their liability and to recover the amount from them. I may also observe that it will be open to respondent No. 2 to take possession over the land in dispute. It will further be open to respondent No. 2 to decide whether or not possession is to be delivered to respondent No. 4. I may also observe that it will be open to respondent No. 2 to take possession over the land in dispute. It will further be open to respondent No. 2 to decide whether or not possession is to be delivered to respondent No. 4. Since on account of changed circumstances, the suit of the petitioner has become infructuous, he may take appropriate measure, if advised to do so, for protecting his possession if the same can be protected under law." The main contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners in the present writ petition is that the aforesaid portion of the order of this court dated Jan. 9, 1987, and more so its underlined portion shall leave no manner of doubt that it twas left open for the JDA to take possession of the land and in accordance with law give possession of the plot to whom the plot has been auctioned and who has deposited the entire price. We may state that not only this that it was left open for the JDA that it may take possession but it was also observed that even the petitioner if so advised can take any action under law to protect his possession. Merely because a person has been dispossessed and if he could not be dispossessed it cannot be said that he has no remedy under law. We may state that there appears to be no dispute that Nanag Ram respondent No. 6 after his bid was accepted and entered into possession of plot No. B-38, made some kachcha construction over it and also the petitioner was in possession whether as a servant or tenant in which controversy we need not go for the present. It appears from the perusal of the file of the JDA produced before us that even the letter to Nanag Ram was addressed by the IDA in Dec 1984 presumably after the civil court had issued injunction in favour of the petitioner. Nanag (am applied to the JDA that the possession should be given when in fact he was already in possession which fact was concealed from the IDA and if the JDA would have known it perhaps there was no question for the JDA to give possession again and at best the JDA could have informed that the possession was already with him. No question of giving possession again arises. No question of giving possession again arises. Whether the petitioner was in possession as a servant or tenant, but it can hardly be denied that he was in possession of the plot on behalf on Nanag Ram and if so Nanag Ram was already in possession and there could not have been any question of dispossessing the petitioner and delivery of possession to Nanag Ram again. We have already made reference to the above extracted portion of the judgment of this Court and no doubt this court said that the JDA may take possession and it will be free to decide as to whether the possession should be given to respondent No. 4 or not in view of the changed circumstances, but as already stated earlier there is no dispute that it was the petitioner who was in possession and he could only be dispossessed by due process of law and not arbitrarily as has been done by the JDA. We will not say that there is evidence of any collusion between the JDA and the respondent No. 6 but at the same time it can hardly be disputed that in the earlier writ petition this fact had come to the notice of JDA that Nanag Ram had entered into possession after confirmation of his bid, had raised kachcha construction and the petitioner claimed to be in possession on his behalf. 4. May state that the JDA itself issued a notice under Section 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (for short, the IDA Act) and that section can only be attracted if the owner makes any development which is unauthorised i.e. without sanction of the JDA. The notice under Section 32 of the JDA Act can be given to owner. The JDA itself treated respondent No. 6 as the owner of the plot No B-38. The notice was in fa-t given to the petitioner and the petitioner challenged it before the IDA Tribunal and the Tribunal under its order dated April 25, 1988, came to the conclusion that the notice can only be given to the owner and not Meethalal, the petitioner, who was not the owner of the plot B-38. The notice was in fa-t given to the petitioner and the petitioner challenged it before the IDA Tribunal and the Tribunal under its order dated April 25, 1988, came to the conclusion that the notice can only be given to the owner and not Meethalal, the petitioner, who was not the owner of the plot B-38. Thus, we are of the opinion that Nanag Ram who having concealed the fact that he already entered in possession, applied to JDA for possession of the plot purchased by him and if the JDA would have known that the possession was already with Nanag Ram. it was not necessary to give physical possession to Nanag Ram again of which he was already possessed and only Symbolical possession could have been given. 5. We may observe that we have said that the petitioner could not have been dispossessed as it appears to us that he was prima facie in possession on behalf of Nanag Ram as even Nanag Ram in his reply to the injunction application has not disputed that at certain time the petitioner was kept as a servant and in that capacity he was in possession. Whether the petitioner has a right to possession or not we do not intend to go into that question but because in the facts of this case which are peculiar in nature, we may state that the parties will get their rights decided from the proper court, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the JDA to have put again Nanag Ram in physical possession because he had already entered long back the possession of plot Na. B-38. Under the circumstances the action of the IDA in dispossessing the petitioner is not justified and appears to us to be arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. This is yet another inning which the petitioner has to initiate against the JDA for putting the petitioner in possession of the plot. 6. Consequently, we hereby allow the writ petition and direct the IDA to put the petitioner back in possession of plot No. B-38, as early as possible but in no case later than 15 days. We may also make it clear that nothing said herein- above will affect the rights of the parties which as said earlier will be determined by the proper forum. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******