JUDGMENT 1. 1. In the year 1975 Plot No. 209 situated in Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur was acquired by the petitioner from Bharat Bhavan Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Jaipur (herein-after called as Society). According to the petitioner as per the maps approved by the society she had completed the constructions in the year 1980 or so. The Jaipur Development Authority Act (here-in-after called as the Act) had replaced the Improvement Trust Act, 1959 with effect from October 1982 i.e. the Jaipur Development Authority Act had come into existence in the year 1982. The society was required to get its L scheme approved from the Jaipur Development Authority. It is stated that the society after making certain changes had sent the plan to the JDA and the JDA after certain modifications had approved the plan. According to the petitioner her plot No. 209 had been shown as semi-detached i.e. three sides of plot have been kept open according to the plan and the rules and a common wall between plot Nos. 208 & 209 was to be constructed i.e., an attached wall between plot Nos. 208 and 209. There is another plot No. 210 adjoining plot No. 209. It is stated by the petitioner that as per plan plot holder of plot No. 209 was to keep 10 ft. portion open towards North and similarly holder of plot No. 210 was to keep 15 ft. portion open towards South for passage of sun and air in between the two plots. It is stated that the JDA had made certain changes in the plan which were opposed by the residents of the colony and a representation was made vide Annexure-2. There were certain complaints that allotee of plot No. 210 had made certain illegal constructions as alleged. A report is said to have been made by the authorities vide Annexure-3. Some complaint was made by the petitioner vide Annexure-4. A notice was sent to the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-6 for explaining certain matters. Vide Annexure-9 certain changes were approved in regard to set- backs of plot Nos. 206 to 21 0. It is the case of the petitioner that plot Nos. 206, 207, 208 & 209 were required to keep three sides open with one wall in between plot Nos. 206 & 207 and again in between plot Nos. Vide Annexure-9 certain changes were approved in regard to set- backs of plot Nos. 206 to 21 0. It is the case of the petitioner that plot Nos. 206, 207, 208 & 209 were required to keep three sides open with one wall in between plot Nos. 206 & 207 and again in between plot Nos. 208 and 209, whereas the corner plot No. 210 which is called as independent plot was supposed to keep all the four sides open. It is so depicted in the revised approval of the JDA. Being aggrieved the respondent Shyam Sunder holder of plot No. 210 moved an application for reference under section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act before the Tribunal and after going into the facts of the case, a direction was given by the Tribunal that the holder of plot No. 210 shall be entitled to raise a wall towards the South of his plot i.e. in between plot Nos. 209 and 210. 2. Admittedly, while issuing direction in favour of the respondent No. I the Tribunal had not issued any notice to the petitioner even though the dispute had been raised by the petitioner from the very beginning. On having coming to know of the order passed in reference under section 83 of the Act, the petitioner moved a review application before the Tribunal. The review application was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 2.4.1996. The petitioner is challenging the order of the Tribunal Annexure-10 and also the orders of the Tribunal passed in review on 2.4.1996 (Annexure- 13). 3. Shyam Sunder, respondent No. I had filed the written statement. Initially, the JDA had not filed the written statement at all, however, on the direction of this Court, ultimately the JDA did file its reply. 4. It is stated in the reply filed by the JDA that initially these plots were carved out by the society because of the reason that in the block there were only five plots i.e. plot Nos. 206 to 210, an odd situation had been created. It is stated that in the map submitted by the society for approval to the JDA plot Nos. 206 and 207 were shown as attached having a common boundary wall and similarly the position with regard to plot Nos. 208 and 209 having common boundary wall in between. 206 to 210, an odd situation had been created. It is stated that in the map submitted by the society for approval to the JDA plot Nos. 206 and 207 were shown as attached having a common boundary wall and similarly the position with regard to plot Nos. 208 and 209 having common boundary wall in between. The plot No. 210 was shown independent having set-backs on all the four sides. The JDA had considered the maps and approved the same, but later on modified the maps submitted by the society. The JDA instead declaring the plot Nos. 209 and 210 as attached plots with a common boundary wall in between and instead of plot No. 210, plot No. 208 was made as independent plot with the direction that plot No. 208 should have set-backs in all the four sides. The result of such modification was that the holder of plot No. 209 had to suffer because of the reason that there was already an attached wall in between plot Nos. 208 and 209 and another attached wall was allowed in between plot Nos. 209 and 210 with the result that free passage and air between plot Nos. 208 and 209 had been constructed. In the scheme, there was provision of one attached wall in between two plots, but in regard to plot Nos. 209 there existed two attached walls on both the sides of the plot. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation before the JDA against such illegal modification and after considering the representation and after serving notice to all the concerned parties and after hearing them, the Zonal Officer of Zone 2-A had submitted a report and again re-revised the plan by bringing the position and situation as it was existing before modification i.e. the maps submitted by the society were again approved with the result that plot No. 210 was declared as independent plot with set-backs on all the four sides. This was so ordered on 22.8.1995. 5. The respondent No. I was aggrieved and he moved an application under section 83 of the Act before the Tribunal. This was so ordered on 22.8.1995. 5. The respondent No. I was aggrieved and he moved an application under section 83 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its impugned order Annexure-10 without having issued any notice to the petitioner whose interest was very much involved in the case, quashed the order dated 22.8.1995 passed by the JDA in regard to the map, with the result that the holder of plot No. 209 petitioner had to suffer a common wall with plot No. 208 and also with plot No. 210 which according to the petitioner was illegal and against the plan. The petitioner was not heard by the Tribunal as no notice was issued to the petitioner. She moved an application for review. The review was dismissed and the Tribunal refused to recall its order. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside or some other order as required in the circumstances of the case be passed. 6. The Tribunal in its impugned order Annexure-10 has mentioned about the grievance and the conditions and the maps relating to plot No. 209. It shows that the Tribunal was cautious of the fact that the petitioner i.e. owner of plot No. 209 was likely to be affected in the user of her plot in regard to air and light. The Tribunal was also cautious of the fact that the JDA had approved the societies' plan wherein the right of the petitioner was involved. It was also the fact that the petitioner was concerned when certain modifications were ordered by the JDA in the revised plan which revised plan was lateron set aside by the JDA itself on the representation of the petitioner and against which revised plan, the respondent No. 1 had filed a reference to the Tribunal. Thus, the vital interest of the petitioner was involved from the very beginning and it was not proper for the respondent No. I as not to implead the petitioner as party before the Tribunal, but the review having been filed, the Tribunal did consider the review and decided the matter on merits. 7. The root points involved and which are raised and to he considered in the-present writ petition are as under:- 1 . Whether there was a map approved by the society; 2. 7. The root points involved and which are raised and to he considered in the-present writ petition are as under:- 1 . Whether there was a map approved by the society; 2. Whether in the map approved and submitted by the society plot Nos. 208 and 209 were declared as attached plots with a common wall in between them; 3. Whether plot No. 210 was approved as an independent plot with the provision of set-backs to he left all around its plot; 4. Whether plot Nos. 208 and 209 were semi-detached plots with three sides open; 5. Whether the plot No. 209 had already been constructed as per plan of the society; 6. Whether the plot No. 210 was constructed lateron; 7. Whether once the map as submitted by the society had been approved finally by the JDA, the JDA had any authority to modify such map causing prejudice to any of the plot holder; 8. Whether the JDA again corrected the modification as per the map submitted by the society; 9. Whether once the construction on plot No. 209 had already been completed before the JDA had come into being, it was appropriate for the respondents to have ordered and change the nature of the plots in regard to set-backs causing prejudice to the plot holders; 10. Whether plot No. 208 could be declared as an independent plot and has to leave set backs on all the four sides instead of plot No. 210; 11. Whether it was appropriate and proper for the society to have submitted the maps for approval for plot No. 210 to be declared as independent plot with set-backs to be left on four sides being a corner plot. 8. Above are certain factors which were to be considered by the Tribunal and the finding should have been given in this regard. If it is true that the holder of plot No. 209 had already constructed on her plot as per the approved plan submitted by the society and also approved by the JDA, there was hardly any necessity to change the approved plan by modifying the same to the effect as to declare plot No. 210 as semidetached and to allow a wall towards South side of the plot No. 210. The authorities did not apply their mind to this effect. The authorities did not apply their mind to this effect. Consequently, the holder of plot No. 209 had to suffer two walls on each of its side and instead of three sides to be left as open, she had to suffer two sides open and two sides covered which were surely against the plans and the rules framed by the JDA. An enquiry was required to be held in this regard to the effect whether the construction as a semi- detached plot had been done by the holder of plot No. 209 before the JDA Act came into being as per the approved plan of the society and if be so, any modification to the contrary could not have been allowed either by the JDA or by the Tribunal as in such situation one of the plot i.e. 209 would suffer the violation of the rules by compulsion which cannot be allowed. 9. Similarly, if at the initial stage plot Nos. 208 and 209 were held to be detached with a common boundary wall in between and the construction had been completed by holder of plot No. 209, it was not possible to make any modifications without effecting the rights of holder of plot No. 209. Initial action of the JDA which was corrected lateron on 22.8.1995 was not in accordance with the rules and as such the decision of the JDA to reapprove the once approved plan and maps submitted by the society was correct. For the reasons that once the approval had been given and construction had come into being, any modification or re- approval of any of the plan or map submitted by any of the plot holder which effects the rights of the adjoining plot holder, cannot be allowed. Three sides open of every plot and four sides open of independent plot situated in the corner had been correctly approved and should not have been changed as that was in accordance with approved maps. 10. The counsel for the petitioner had taken an objection that no reference was maintainable under section 83 of the. Three sides open of every plot and four sides open of independent plot situated in the corner had been correctly approved and should not have been changed as that was in accordance with approved maps. 10. The counsel for the petitioner had taken an objection that no reference was maintainable under section 83 of the. Act and if at all the respondent No. I was aggrieved by any approval of the map as initially submitted by the society and duly approved by the JDA, the respondent No. 1 could have filed an appeal, but in no case reference at the instance of respondent No. 1 could have been allowed. Section 83 of the JDA Act provides that any dispute arising of any provision of this Act can be referred to the Tribunal by the Authorities except as otherwise provided, any person aggrieved by an order or notice of the authority may file an appeal before the Tribunal with in 30 days and any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the authority effecting his right may refer the dispute to the Tribunal within 30 days of communication. Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 83 of Chapter - XII of the JDA Act reads as under : "83. Constitution of Tribunal 7. Except as otherwise provided, any dispute arising out of any provision of this Act may be referred to the Tribunal by the Authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto. (8) Except as otherwise provided- (a) any person aggrieved by an order or notice of the Authority may file an appeal in the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of such order or notice to him; and (b) any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting his rights may refer the dispute to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or injury; and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final." 11. The Authority has been defined as Jaipur Development Authority constituted under section 3 and Section 3 provides of establishment of the JDA a body corporate, composing of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other officers as mentioned under section 4. The Authority has been defined as Jaipur Development Authority constituted under section 3 and Section 3 provides of establishment of the JDA a body corporate, composing of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other officers as mentioned under section 4. In the present case the respondent No. I was aggrieved by the action of the officer of the JDA and, therefore, if he had filed a reference, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed. Of course, he could have filed the appeal as well. In any case in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the matter in regard to the maintainability of the reference or in what circumstance the reference can be made to the Tribunal. However, because of the discussions and reasons mentioned above, an inquiry is required by the Tribunal in this case to the effect whether the petitioner had completed her construction before the JDA Act had come into being and if so found, the rights of the petitioner effecting her maps in regard to leaving of open sides viz. a viz. her neighbour and duties of the neighbour plot to leave the open side adjoining the plot of the petitioner could not have been effected or in the alternative because of the reason that the petitioner had started the construction as per approved plan and there being no application for modification of her plan if it is found that the respondent No. I had started the construction later than the construction of the petitioner, in that situation the rights of the petitioner could not have been effected by allowing the respondent No. 1 for raising a wall in between the plot Nos. 209 and 210. 12. With the above said observations, the orders of the Tribunal Annexures 10 and 13 are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal with the direction to the parties to prove before the Tribunal about the starting dates of the constructions and also of completing the constructions by the petitioner in plot No. 209 and by the respondent No. I in plot No. 210. If it is found by the Tribunal that the petitioner had started construction prior to 1982 or in any case it was prior to the construction of respondent No. I Shyam Sunder, or it is found that Shyam Sunder had started the construction after the construction of the petitioner in plot No. 209, in that situation the approved plan submitted by the society for approval to the JDA and approved by the JDA shall stand and the action of the respondent No. 1 for constructing the wall in between plot No. 209 and 210 shall neither be proper nor as per approved plan and the JDA would take necessary steps as required under law to compel the respondent No. I to act in accordance with the approved plan by the JDA vide its order dated 22.8.1995.The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 3.2.1998 and the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry after giving proper opportunity to all the concerned parties within a period of six months and pass necessary orders as per observations made above.Orders accordingly. *******