Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1016 (RAJ)

Chhitarmal v. Jaipur Development Authority

2006-03-29

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Judgment of the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 22.01.1993, whereby his reference application in the matter of non-allotment of the plot in the scheme “Ghar Apna Ek Sapna” to the survey holder of Kachchi Basti issued in the year 1986 by not treating him eligible for allotment. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is a survey number holder of Kachchi Basti, Nagtalai outside Surajpole, Jaipur having survey No. YY-212/81 and the said number was revised to No. 484/28721 being resident of prior to 1981. On 24.05.1985 the residents of Nagtalai Kachchi Basti were heard in an open meeting and on that day without hearing him, it was recorded that the petitioner is not residing in the said Kachchi Basti, therefore, his claim was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.1985, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the JDA Tribunal and the same was allowed on 22.08.1985 (Annexure-1) with a direction to pass fresh order in the light of the instruction issued by the State Government on 14.05.1985. After affording opportunity of being heard to appellant (the petitioner herein). 3. The further case of the petitioner is that the JDA framed a scheme for allotment of constructed houses to the survey holders of Kachchi Basti, Nagtalai. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,000/-vide Challan No. 1239 dated 02.03.1987. The petitioner received a letter dated 11.08.1988 from the Assistant Collector (K.B.), Zone B calling upon the petitioner to submit evidence with regard to the residence of the petitioner in Kachchi Basti before 1981. In response to the said letter the petitioner submitted a copy of the order dated 22.08.1985, voter list of 1980, voter cards of 1984 and 1988 and Challan No. 1239 dated 02.03.1987 and ration card. In the meanwhile, the house of the petitioner was demolished on 02.07.1988 and he was dispossessed on the ground that his house stands on the road which is to be constructed. Simultaneously, the petitioner was settled in a constructed house bearing No. 121 in the Scheme by the JDA authorities. On 01.07.1989 the petitioner received a letter from the JDA to submit the receipt issued by the J.E.N. with regard to the removal of his possession so that further proceedings may be taken in his case. Simultaneously, the petitioner was settled in a constructed house bearing No. 121 in the Scheme by the JDA authorities. On 01.07.1989 the petitioner received a letter from the JDA to submit the receipt issued by the J.E.N. with regard to the removal of his possession so that further proceedings may be taken in his case. Thereafter, no proceedings were taken and the petitioner was allowed to reside in the said house No. 121. However on 15.05.1992 a lottery for allotment of constructed house in Nagtalai Kachchi Basti was drawn but the name of the petitioner was not included. Therefore, the petitioner filed a reference application before the JDA Tribunal and the JDA Tribunal first granted stay order not to give possession to the successful applicants and subsequently status quo was ordered to be maintained. The JDA Tribunal rejected the reference application of the petitioner without considering the order dated 22.08.1985 and further came to the conclusion that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 2,000/-after the last date of deposit i.e., 28.01.1987 and was not approved as survey holder. Therefore, he was not eligible for inclusion of his name in his lottery draw. 4. First show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 16.02.1993 which were duly served. An application was moved by the petitioner on coming to know that the scheme has been transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur therefore, the Municipal Corporation be joined as a necessary party and the same was allowed on 011.1993 and the notice to the Municipal Corporation was also duly served on 14.02.1994. On 25.03.1996 the petition was admitted and the notices were issued to the respondents. Notices were served upon Respondents No. 1 and 2 and power on behalf of Respondent No. 3 was also filed on 01.03.1997. Thus, service was completed. Despite two opportunities, no reply has been filed either by the JDA or by the Municipal Corporation. 5. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 30.07.2001 which also remained uncontroverted. In the said affidavit the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1987 the approximate price of the house was Rs. 15,000/-and subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondent has issued a allotment letter dated 26.09.1995 allotting him Plot No. 84 in Nagtalai Scheme wherein the price has been shown as 54,130/-out of which Rs. In the said affidavit the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1987 the approximate price of the house was Rs. 15,000/-and subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondent has issued a allotment letter dated 26.09.1995 allotting him Plot No. 84 in Nagtalai Scheme wherein the price has been shown as 54,130/-out of which Rs. 5,000/-deposited by him has been adjusted and now the petitioner has been asked to pay Rs. 53,130/-. But the said house was in possession of Asgari Bagum and the same was subsequently allotted to her. Therefore, he had submitted various representations to the respondent JDA and other authorities as well the Chief Minister, in response to which a letter dated 30.09.1996 was received by him from the Office of Chief Minister wherein it has been mentioned that the further proceedings can only be taken if he withdraw the writ petition from the High Court. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the JDA Tribunal in its order dated 22.01.1993 has not considered the order dated 22.08.1985 whereby his appeal was allowed against the order dated 30.05.1985 and a direction was given to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner and in view of the said order, the JDA authorities are estopped from disputing the fact that the petitioner is not having survey number. As regards deposit of amount on 02.03.1987 in respect of which the last date fixed was 28.01.1987, the submission of Mr. Bhandari is that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality in not considering the fact that two applicants namely Radhey Shyam Khati and Suraj Mal also deposited the amount after 28.01.1987. Therefore, the date was either extended or deemed to have been extended. Thus, the Judgment of the JDA Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. Apart from above, when the house No. 84 which was in possession of another person was allotted to the petitioner, a request for consideration of allotment of house No. 121 and charging of the price which was prevailing in the year 1992 was deferred on account of pendency of the writ petition. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner is not having survey number of Nagtalai Kachchi Basti and further he is a defaulter, therefore, his name was rightly not included in the lottery draw as per the terms of the scheme. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner is not having survey number of Nagtalai Kachchi Basti and further he is a defaulter, therefore, his name was rightly not included in the lottery draw as per the terms of the scheme. 9. I have heard the rival submissions made by both the parties and have also perused the record of the writ petition. 10. The JDA Tribunal in its order dated 22.01.1993 was under an obligation to consider the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 22.08.1985 wherein survey number of the petitioner has been mentioned and a fresh opportunity was also afforded to the petitioner before issuance of the allotment letter but no proceedings has been taken by the JDA Tribunal. The submission of Mr. Bhandari, Sr. Counsel is also correct that in view of the fact that survey number was mentioned in the earlier order of the JDA Tribunal dated 22.08.1985, therefore, it is not open for the JDA to dispute the same. I am also of the view that the respondents are not correct in debarring the petitioner on another ground of not depositing the requisite amount of 2,000/-before 28.01.1987, particularly, in the facts and circumstances wherein two persons namely Radhey Shyam Khati and Suram Mal deposited the amount after 28.01.1987, even allowed to be participated in the allotment proceedings. Thus, in my view, either the last date was extended or the same was deemed to have been extended. As regards withdrawal of the writ petition for consideration of the case of the petitioner, allotment of house No. 121 at cost of the house prevailing in the year 1992, the aforesaid order of the JDA Tribunal dated 22.01.1993 was required to be adjudicated on merit. Therefore, the action of petitioner not withdrawing the writ petition is also justified. As aforesaid, the order of the JDA Tribunal dated 22.01.1993 is liable to be quashed. 11. In view of the above, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner have force and the same are deserve to be allowed and the submissions of the Counsel for the respondents are devoid of force and the same are deserve to be rejected. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 11. In view of the above, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner have force and the same are deserve to be allowed and the submissions of the Counsel for the respondents are devoid of force and the same are deserve to be rejected. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 22.01.1993 is quashed and set aside and in the changed circumstances, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of house No. 121 in Nagtalai Kachchi Basti with the further direction to consider the same for charging of the cost of the house prevailing in the year 1992.