Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 794 (RAJ)

J. D. A. Jaipur v. J. D. A. Tribunal

2005-03-14

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-In this matter arguments were partly heard on 28.01.2005 and thus it has come up on the Board of completion thereof . 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the matter. 3. The petitioner, Jaipur Development Authority, has filed this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment , dated 24.04.1997, of the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, in the reference case No. 116/1996 filed by the Respondent No.2. 4. The Respondent No.2 was allotted plot No. E-511 in auction, on 28.05.1984 by the petitioner in its Vaishali Nagar Scheme. The Respondent No.2 was to pay the cost of the said plot in installments and first installment became due on 26.02.1984, which was paid by him, on 26.06.1984; he paid the second and third installments on 12.07.1985 and 212.1986, respectively. 5. It appears that due to some ignorance he could not deposit the fourth installment due on 212.1990 and therefore he submitted an application praying therein that the amount of Rs.700/-deposited by him towards the cost of soak-pit may be adjusted against the fourth installment. 6. It is not in dispute that by that time the petitioner had not laid the sewerage line and thus there would not have been any difficult with the petitioner to adjust that amount of Rs.700/-deposited by the Respondent No.2 against the cost of soak-pit, towards the fourth installment. It is the case of default in payment of one installment and that too due to ignorance. 7. Looking to the category to which the Respondent No.2 belongs and the fact that he had deposited Rs.700/-for the soak-pit, which the petitioner had not constructed by that time and, as such, out of that amount the petitioner could have adjusted the fourth installment of Rs.382.52p. The Respondent No.2 had made the request for doing so but the petitioner had not taken into consideration the same in correct perspective. In the facts of this case the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality to grant the relief in favour of the Respondent No.2. 8. The amount of Rs.700/-of the Respondent No.2 of the cost of soak-pit, was lying deposited with the petitioner and on the request made by the Respondent No.2 the petitioner could have adjusted the amount of fourth installment out of that amount. 8. The amount of Rs.700/-of the Respondent No.2 of the cost of soak-pit, was lying deposited with the petitioner and on the request made by the Respondent No.2 the petitioner could have adjusted the amount of fourth installment out of that amount. The petitioner is meant for development of the Jaipur city and to provide land to the landless persons but in the case of poor or medium class persons it comes very heavily in comparison to big-guns and high-ups in the society. How it deals with the matter of the persons belonging to the high society or having the approach in comparison to the poor persons, is explicitly clear from the facts of this case. 9. I do not find any error or illegality on the facts of the order of the learned Tribunal impugned in the writ petition. 10. In the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.