JUDGMENT 1. - These three cases-(i) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008 (Anand Kumar Sharma v. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal & Ors.) (ii) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 545/2007 (Anand Kumar Sharma v. Pradeep Choudhary), and (ii) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 512/2008 (Anand Kumar Sharma v. Pradeep Choudhary) arise out of the same set of litigation, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being taken up for decision by this common order. 2. In C.W.P. No. 601/2008, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. 263/2007 titled Anand Kumar Sharma v. Secretary, J.D.A. and another whereby the Reference has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 3. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 545/2007 was filed by Anand Kumar Sharma for the alleged non-compliance of the interim order dated 2.11.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007 titled Anand Kumar Sharma v. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal & Ors. filed against the interim order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal in the Temporary Injunction Application No. 514/2007 Anand Kumar Sharma v. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal and another in Reference No. 263/2007 . The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on 12.8.2008 on account of passing of the above final order dated 15.1.2008 in Reference No. 263/2007 by the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal. Against the above final order dated 15.1.2008, the present Writ Petition No. 601/2008 was filed. However, the aforesaid contempt petition was kept pending. 4. The subsequent contempt petition- S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 512/2008 Anand Kumar Sharma v. Pradeep Chaudhary has been filed in the present writ petition on 21.10.2008 when the interim order dated 12.8.2008 passed in CWP No. 601/2008 was said to be not complied with. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that joint Khatedari land of the petitioner and his brothers of Khasra Nos. 708/3, 724, 823 and 824 situated in Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur is immediately adjacent to the land of respondent No. 3 situated in Khasra Nos. 722, 723, 825 and 826 at Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that joint Khatedari land of the petitioner and his brothers of Khasra Nos. 708/3, 724, 823 and 824 situated in Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur is immediately adjacent to the land of respondent No. 3 situated in Khasra Nos. 722, 723, 825 and 826 at Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Respondent No. 3 M/s. Joy Syndicate Enclave Pvt. Ltd. made an application to the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act of 1956') for surrendering of Khatedari rights and for permission to develop a Group Housing Scheme therein. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is not aggrieved of the conversion order under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 as well as approved plan passed by respondent No. 2 J.D.A. in favour of respondent No. 3 M/s. Joy Syndicate Enclave Pvt. Ltd. but he is aggrieved of the inaction on the part of J.D.A. for not restraining the respondent No. 3 from making construction in excess of the approved plane towards his side despite the representation and submission of the copies of the survey reports wherein boundaries of the aforesaid Khasra numbers of the petitioner and his brothers have been categorically demarcated. 6. It is categorically stated in para 6 of Reference Application (Annexure-7) filed under Section 83(8) (b) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as "the J.D.A. Act, 1982") that it is the duty of the J.D.A. to see that the construction should be allowed to be made as per approved plan and in case any construction is made in violation of the approved plan, then, the person concerned be restrained from doing so but the J.D.A. respondent No. 2 did not restrain the respondent No. 3. Thus, the J.D.A. failed to discharge its duties under the J.D.A. Act, 1982, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for injunction against the J.D.A. respondent No. 2 herein (Non-applicant No. 1 before the Tribunal) for restraining the respondent No. 3 herein (Non application No. 2 before the Tribunal) from making construction outside the scope of approved plan, in the joint Khatedari land of the petitioner and his brothers resulting encroachment in Khasra Nos. 708/3 and 724 at village-Sirsi, Tehsil and district-Jaipur and further, in case any illegal construction has been made then the same be demolished. The injunction was also sought against respondent No. 3 to the same effect. The Tribunal was having the jurisdiction to grant the injunction against both the respondents and wrongly refused the same on 15.1.2008 for want of jurisdiction. 7. The respondent No. 3 herein (respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal) filed reply to the reference application as well as present writ petition and submitted therein that the petitioner himself has stated that he has no grievance of conversion of the land under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 as well as approved plan and the dispute raised by the petitioner is simply a boundary dispute, which is outside the scope of the J.D.A. Act, 1982. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by J.D.A. and respondent No. 3 and submitted therein that the respondent No. 3 is making construction in excess of the approved plan towards his side resulting encroachment in Khasra Nos. 708/3 and 824. 9. The J.D.A. Tribunal first passed the interim order on 18.7.2007 whereby injunction in favour of the petitioner was refused by observing that in case ultimately it is found while deciding the reference application that the construction has been made towards the side of the petitioner then he may be suitably compensated in terms of money. 708/3 and 824. 9. The J.D.A. Tribunal first passed the interim order on 18.7.2007 whereby injunction in favour of the petitioner was refused by observing that in case ultimately it is found while deciding the reference application that the construction has been made towards the side of the petitioner then he may be suitably compensated in terms of money. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.7.2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007 was filed wherein vide interim order dated 2.11.2007, the respondents were restrained from making any construction over the disputed land, the Tribunal after passing the aforesaid interim order dated 2.11.2007 by this Court, without directing the J.D.A. to conduct the inspection whether the construction is being made as per approved plan or not and further whether the construction is being made as per approved plan or not and further whether the same is as per the provisions of J.D.A. Act, 1982 and the Rules or Building Bye-laws, proceeded to decide the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and the Rules or Building Bye-laws, proceeded to decide the reference application considering the fact that in the order dated 2.11.2007, there is no stay on further proceedings before the Tribunal and rejected the reference application on 15.1.2008 on the ground that the present case is of boundary dispute of the agricultural land which falls within thr5 ambit of Section 111 of the Act of 1956 and the matter did not relate to the ( J.D.A. as there was no act or omission on the part of respondent No. 1- J.D.A.) which could be complained of by the petitioner, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. However, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 10. Respondent No. 2-J.D.A. (Non applicant No. 1 before the Tribunal) has neither filed any reply to the reference application nor produced any inspection report on record before the J.D.A. Tribunal. In reply to the present writ petition, it is stated that the site plan in favour of respondent No. 3 was issued after superimposing the same on the revenue map and on inspection, it was found that the construction is as per the map but no inspection report/documents even in writ petition, have been filed to substantiate the aforesaid submission. 11. Submission of Mr. 11. Submission of Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that it is the function and duty of the J.D.A. under Section 16(p) and Section 54(2) of the J.D.A., Act, 1982 read with proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 to see that no development of any land is undertaken or carried out except by or under the control and supervision of the J.D.A. and further to see that the land made available to the developer for allotment be developed in accordance with Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws applicable to the local body concerned. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the construction has not been made in accordance with the approved plan and the same is in excess towards his side of agricultural land of Khasra Nos. 708/3 and 724 resulting in encroachment as stated in para 6 of the reference application but still, without waiting for the reply of J.D.A. or directing the J.D.A. to carry out the inspection whether the construction is being made as per approved plan or not, the Tribunal has given the finding that there is no act or omission on the part of J.D.A. which could be complained of by the petitioner and the same is wholly erroneous. The further finding of boundary dispute is also equally erroneous as the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority under Section 111 of the Act of 1956. In one survey report dated 23.12.2006, 52 feet encroachment was said to be found and in another survey report dated 23.3.2007, 37 feet encroachment was said to be found by the Revenue Authorities, therefore, the petitioner who had already invoked jurisdiction under Section 1 11 of the Act of 1956 was having a case to be decided on merit in accordance with the provisions of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 and the dismissal of the Reference by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the J.D.A. Act, 1982. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per Section 99 of J.D.A. Act, 1982, the civil Court's jurisdiction is barred in respect of any matter required to be decided by authorities i.e. J.D.A. and other authorities referred in the same Section of the J.D.A. Act, 1982. As per Section 83(8)(b), any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting his rights may refer the dispute to the Tribunal. In the instant case, there was omission on the part of J.D.A. which has not acted upon despite the representation to restrain respondent No. 3 herein from raising construction outside the scope of approved plan. It is settled position of law that in case there is dispute about jurisdiction of civil Court and revenue Court, then, in case the main relief can only be granted by the civil Court, then the civil Court will have the jurisdiction. Therefore, in this case the jurisdiction of deciding any matter arising out of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 will be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the J.D.A. has right to revoke/modify the permission for development in certain circumstances as per Section 30 of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and further impose penalty and order demolition of the unauthorized construction, under Section 31 of J.D.A. Act, 1982. 15. In support of his submission with regard to jurisdiction of civil Court and revenue Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on RLW 1969 page 507 (Manraj v. Rameshwar) , 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 347 : RLW 2000(2) Raj. 1130 (Janki Devi v. Maniram and others) , AIR 1979 Rajasthan 142 : 1979 RLW 164 (Badri Lal and another v. Moda and others) (D.B.) and 1968 RLW 375 (Rattu v. Mala) . 16. On contempt petitions, Mr, Kamlakar Sharma submits that the respondent contemner intentionally and will fully has encroached even on the area of 37 feet towards his side and made construction despite the aforesaid interim orders. Thus, the contemner is liable for punishment. 17. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Mr. 16. On contempt petitions, Mr, Kamlakar Sharma submits that the respondent contemner intentionally and will fully has encroached even on the area of 37 feet towards his side and made construction despite the aforesaid interim orders. Thus, the contemner is liable for punishment. 17. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Mr. Alok Sharma is that since the petitioner has not disputed the conversion order of land under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 as well as the approved plan, the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking injunction against J.D.A. as also the respondent No. 3 was not within the competence. The Tribunal has to exercise jurisdiction within the J.D.A. Act, 1982, more particularly as referred to in Rule of the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1988. The dispute is beyond the scope of the aforesaid provisions as the same was of boundary dispute, therefore, the same cannot be saved by smart and camouflage pleadings and the Tribunal rightly rejected the reference application vide its order dated 15.1.2008 for want of jurisdiction. 18. Lastly, Mr. Alok Sharma submits that this case may also be examined from the converse angle, on merit, that in case the Tribunal is allowed to examine the dispute on merit then it would be the case of writ of prohibition. 19. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on (1979) 2 SCC 572 (Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra) , (2006) SCC 574 : RLW 2007(2) SC 1642 (P.K. Sreekantan and others v. P. Sreekumaran Nair and others) , (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R. Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others) , (2008) 8 SCC 12 (Faquruddin (dead) through LRs v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs) , (2007) SCC 565 (Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others v. Nagesh Siddapa Navigund and others) . 20. On contempt petitions, Mr. Alok Sharma submits that respondent-contemner has not made any construction in excess of the approved plan, therefore, no case of contempt is made out. 21. Learned counsel for the J.D.A. submits that the construction is being made as per approved plan and the J.D.A. carried out the inspection and orally stated that the date of inspection is 15.2.2007 but the same was neither on the record of the Tribunal nor placed on record of this writ petition. 22. 21. Learned counsel for the J.D.A. submits that the construction is being made as per approved plan and the J.D.A. carried out the inspection and orally stated that the date of inspection is 15.2.2007 but the same was neither on the record of the Tribunal nor placed on record of this writ petition. 22. 1 have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 23. Before proceeding further, it would he relevant to quote Sections 16(p), 30(1)(b), 32(1), 32(2), 54(2), 54-B, 83 (6), 83(8)(b) and 99 of J.D.A. Act, 1982 and Sections 90-B(1), 90-B(5) and 90-B(6) of the Act of 1956 which are as follows: 16. Functions of the Authority-The main object of the Authority shall be to secure the integrated development of the Jaipur Region arid for the purpose the functions of the Authority shall be - (a) to (o) ...... (p) regulating the erection or re-erection of buildings arid projections, making material alterations therein and providing for open spaces in Jaipur Region or in any part thereof as specified by the Authority; 30. (p) regulating the erection or re-erection of buildings arid projections, making material alterations therein and providing for open spaces in Jaipur Region or in any part thereof as specified by the Authority; 30. Power of revocation and modifications of permission to development.-(1) If it appears to the authority it is expedient, having regard to the plan prepared or under preparation that any permission to develop land granted under this Act or any other law, should be revoked or modified, the authority may after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard against such revocation or modification, by order, revoke or modify the permission to such extent as appears to it to be necessary: Provided that - (a) Where the development relates to the carrying out of any building or other operation, no such order shall affect such of the operations as have been previously carried out; or shall be passed after these operations have substantially progressed or have been completed ; (b) Where the development relates to a change of use of land, no such order shall be passed at any time after the change has taken place : (Provided further that where the revocation for modification of the permission is necessary in public interest, the provisions of the first proviso shall not apply) (2) Where permission is revoked or modified by an order made under sub-section (1) and any owner claims within the time and in the manner prescribed, compensation for the expenditure incurred in carrying out the development in accordance with such permission which has been rendered abortive by the revocation or modification, the Authority shall, after giving the owner reasonable opportunity of being heard by the officer, appointed by it in this behalf and after considering his report assess and after reasonable compensation to the owner. (3) If the owner does not accept the compensation and gives notice, within thirty days of his refusal to accept, the Authority shall refer the matter for the adjudication of the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and be binding on the owner and the Authority. 31. Penalty for unauthorized development or for use otherwise than in conformity with the Plan-(1) Any person who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person commences, undertakes or carries out development or institutes, or changes the use of any land - (a) ....... 31. Penalty for unauthorized development or for use otherwise than in conformity with the Plan-(1) Any person who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person commences, undertakes or carries out development or institutes, or changes the use of any land - (a) ....... (b) which is not in accordance with any permission granted or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission has been granted. (Emphasis supplied) 32. Power to require removal of un-authorised development-(a) Where any development of land has been carried out as indicated in subsection (1) of Section 31, the Authority may, subject to the provisions of this Section, (within ten years) of such development, serve on the owner a notice requiring him, within such period being not exceeding one month, as may be specified therein after the service of the notice, to take such steps as may be specified in the notice-(Emphasis supplied) (a) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 to restore the land to its condition existing before the said development took place; (Emphasis supplied) (b) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 31 to secure compliance with the conditions or with the permission as modified : Provided that, where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land the Authority shall serve a notice on the occupier also. (2) In particular, such notice may, for purposes of sub-section (1) require - (a) the demolition or alteration of any building or works; (b) the carrying out of land of any building or other operations; or (c) the discontinuance of any use of land. 54. Land to vest in the Authority and its disposal- (1) .... (2) No development of any land shall be undertaken or carried out except by or under the control and supervision of the Authority. (3 and 4).... (54-B. Allotment, regularisation etc. 54. Land to vest in the Authority and its disposal- (1) .... (2) No development of any land shall be undertaken or carried out except by or under the control and supervision of the Authority. (3 and 4).... (54-B. Allotment, regularisation etc. of certain lands.-(1) All lands which are deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the Authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956) upon resumption or surrender of tenancy rights and interest of khatedars thereof, as the case may be, shall be available for allotment, or regularisation, preferably to the persons having possession over such land or part thereof, as the case may be, on the basis of allotment made or Patta given to them by the Housing Cooperative Society or on the basis of any other document of transfer of land to them either by tenant or any other person claiming through the tenant, whose tenancy rights have been resumed or surrendered,under the said provision on such terms and conditions and subject to payment to the Authority of such charges or premium or both, as the case may be, and at such rates as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf: Provided that no allotment or regularisation of any land shall be made which has been duly earmarked for public utilities/services such as park, nursery, civil or military aviation, bus stand, transport terminal, railways, public roads, highways, footpath, sewage lines, water supply electricity supply, telephone lines, hospital school educational institution, university cremation ground, graveyard and such other purposes as the State Government may specify by notification in the Official Gazette. (2) The charges realised under sub-section (1) shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and to the fund of the authority as may be determined by the State Government.) 83. Constitution of Tribunal - 1...... 2...... 3...... 4...... 5...... (6) The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in respect of hearing and deciding of an appeal or any dispute referred to it. 83. (8) Except as otherwise provided- (a) ..... Constitution of Tribunal - 1...... 2...... 3...... 4...... 5...... (6) The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in respect of hearing and deciding of an appeal or any dispute referred to it. 83. (8) Except as otherwise provided- (a) ..... (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.) 99. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Court-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter which is, required to be or may be decided by the Authority, Executive Committee, Jaipur Development Commissioner, Functional Board, any body thereof, the Tribunal or the State Government under this Act, (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, an order passed or a direction given by the State Government to the Authority or an order passed or notice issued by the Authority under this Act shall be final arid shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings." 90-B. Termination of rights and resumption of land in certain cases- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) where before the commencement of the Rajasthan Laws (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Rajasthan Act No. 21 of 1999) any person, holding any land for agricultural purposes in (Unbanishable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area), has used or has allowed to be used such land or part thereof, as the case may be, for non-agricultural purposes or, has parted with possession of such land or part thereof, as the case may be, for consideration by way of sale or agreement to sell and/or by executing power of attorney and/or will or in any other manner, for purported non-agricultural use, the rights and interest of such person in the said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be liable to be terminated and such land shall be liable to be resurned. 90-B(5) Where, after hearing the parties, the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, is of the opinion that the land is liable to be resumed under sub-section (1), he shall after recording reasons in writing, order for termination of rights and interest of such person in the said land and order for resumption of the said land. 90-B(6) The land so resumed under sub-sections (3) and (5) shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances and shall be deemed to have placed at the disposal of the concerned local authority under Section 102-A of this Act with effect from the date of passing such order : Provided that the land surrendered under sub-section (3) above, shall be made available to the person, who surrenders the ]arid, for its planned development in accordance with the rules, regulations and by-laws applicable to the local body concerned, (for housing, commercial, institutional, semi commercial, industrial, cinema or petrol pump purposes or, for the purpose of multiplex units, infrastructure projects or tourism projects or, for other community facilities or public utility purposes). 24. In Mohammad Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572 , the Apex Court while dealing with Section 18(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 which was corresponding to Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, 1309, held that the Reference Court-Tribunal has a duty to see that the Collector complied with the conditions laid down in Section 18 so as to give jurisdiction to hear the reference and held in para Nos. 24, 25 and 27 as under : "24. From these considerations, it follows that the Court Junctions under the Act being a Tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of these principles; we would be extremely reluctant to accept the statement of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Karim's case (supra). 25. Every Tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such Tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances. 25. Every Tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such Tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances. Its obvious duty is to see that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions under which the Tribunal can function, it goes without saying that before that Tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen. As observed by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan , wherever jurisdiction is given to a Court by an Act of Parliament and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in that Act it is a universal principle that these terms must be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise.27. In deciding the question of jurisdiction in a case of reference under Section 18 by the Collector to the Court, the Court is certainly not acting as a Court of appeal; it is only discharging the elementary duty of satisfying itself that a reference which it is called upon to decide is a valid and proper reference according to the provisions of the Act under which it is made. That is a basic and preliminary duty which no tribunal can possibly avoid. The Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the, proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, and if finds that it was so made, decline to answer reference." (Emphasis supplied) 25. In P.K. Sreekantan and others v. P. Sreekumaran Nair and others, (2006) 13 SCC 574 which was "a case of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was held that the Reference Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 cannot deal with matter covered under Section 30 as the jurisdiction of Reference Court under Sections 18 and 30 is different. The Apex Court held in para No. 11 as under: "11. The Reference Court derive jurisdiction from the reference made. Reference under Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different from each other. The Apex Court held in para No. 11 as under: "11. The Reference Court derive jurisdiction from the reference made. Reference under Section 18 and Section 30 are conceptually different from each other. The decree in terms of Section 18 is different from the one in terms of Section 30. Remedy available in terms of Section 55 of the Act is against a decree. The question whether reference Court can deal with the question covered by Section 30 of the Act in a reference made under Section 18 of the Act and vice versa has been the subject matter of judicial determination. In (Rai) Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secry. of State ( AIR 1930 PC 64 ) it was held that the jurisdiction of the Courts under the Act is a special one and strictly limited to the terms of Sections 18, 20 and 21. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's Award and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Therefore, it is certain that when the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation that alone is the matter referred and the Court has no jurisdiction to determine or consider anything beyond it." 26. The Apex Court in para 13 of the aforesaid judgment of Y.K. Sreekantan's case further referred the observations made in Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra (supra). 27. Since the Tribunal has given finding on the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, this Court is exercising its jurisdiction of writ of certiorari and confining the judgment on the jurisdiction issue only. The judgments relied upon by the parties, except the aforesaid two judgments (Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra) and (P.K. Sreekantan and others v. P. Sreekumaran Nair and others) are not relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, consideration of other submissions and judgments in support thereof will not be proper as the same may prejudice the rights of parties on merit. 28. 28. In Mohammed Hasnuddin (supra), it was held that the reference by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court will not confer the reference Court the jurisdiction of Court of appeal as its jurisdiction is limited to satisfy itself whether the reference is valid or not and in another judgment rendered in P.K. Sreekantan's case (supra), the exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 while deciding the reference confined to the consideration of specific objection taken to the collector's award whereas jurisdiction under Section 30 has setting of a decision in a partition suit. 29. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court on the issue of jurisdiction is that the jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal by the statutory enactment is of special nature, therefore, the Tribunal is to confine with reference to the orders passed/decision within the scope of remedy available as prescribed in the relevant Section of the statute. 30. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the main averment with regard to the injunction claimed by the petitioner applicant has been referred to in para 6 of the reference application and the relief of injunction has been sought on the basis of averments read with other relevant paragraphs according to which J.D.A. has failed to discharge its duty as referred to above. Para 6 of the Reference Application and the prayer thereof as also the final order dated 15.1.2008. Para 6 of the Reference Application and the prayer thereof as also the final order dated 15.1.2008. are as follows: 6- ;g fd vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds i{k esa Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&90 ch ds rgr dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ,oa uD'kk vuqeksnu fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dks fdlh rjg dh dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS ijUrq vizkFkhZ la0 2 izkFkhZ ds dCtsdk'r dh Hkwfe ij vuqeksfnr uD'ks ds fglkc ls HkkSfrd :i ls vkxs c<+dj tks fuekZ.k dk;Z djkus dh ps"Vk dj jgk gS] og fLFkfr t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds Kku esa gksus ds ckotwn Hkh cu jgh gS tcfd t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd og dksbZ Hkh Hkou ekufp= vuqeksfnr fd;k tkrk gS rks mlds laca/k esa ekSds ij fd;s tk jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dk voyksdu djs vkSj vxj vuqeksfnr uD'ks ds fo:) o foijhr dksbZ fuekZ.k gksrk gS rks mls vfoyEc jksds vkSj ftl izdkj vizkFkhZ la0 2 izkFkhZ dh tehu ij vkxs c<+rs g, fuekZ.k dk;Z djk jgk gS og t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj }kjk vuqeksfnr uD'ks dks vkM+ cukdj fuekZ.k dk;Z dj jgk gSA tcfd okLrfodrk esa vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds [kljksa dh lhek vizkFkhZ }kjk djkbZ xbZ uki ds vuqlkj rdjhcu 37 QhV izkFkhZ dh tehu ij vkxs c<+dj fuekZ.k djk jgk gSA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ la0 1 vizkFkhZ la0 2 dks voS/kkfud fuekZ.k o vuqeksfnr uD'ks ds foijhr HkkSfrd fLFkfr ls ijs fuekZ.k dk;Z esa lg;ksx ns jgk gSA tcfd bl izdkj ds fuekZ.k dks jksds tkus dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro o {ks=kf/kdkj t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks izkIr gSA bl izdkj tks ukitks[k dk ekufp= gS mlesa [kljk ua0 722] 723] 825 o 826 dh fLFkfr ns[kus ls Hkh Li"V gS fd vfrfjDr [kljksa esa if'peh fn'kk ds vU; [kljk uEcjku vksojysi gks jgs gSaA vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds [kljk uEcjku dk tks uD'kk vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gSA mlds vuqlkj dksbZ fMekdsZ'ku djus vkSj vxj dksbZ fMekdsZ'ku dj jgk gS rks dkxth dgrk gS] HkkSfrd lR;kiu Li"V :i ls ugha fd;k x;k gS tcfd HkkSfrd lR;kiu djus ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd ;g lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk ugha dh xbZ gSA vxj ekSds dk lR;kiu dj fMekdsZ'ku fd;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe vius vki gh vyx gks tkrh gSA ;gh ugha] if'pe dh lhek esa [kljk ua0 722] 723] 825 o 826 esa Hkh ewy o okLrfod fLFkfr ds foijhr vizkFkhZ la0 2 dk dCtk gSA bl izdkj t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj }kjk tks d`R; fu;eksa ds nk;js esa gksdj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] og dk;Zokgh vizkFkhZ la0 1 }kjk ugha dh tk jgh gSA izkFkhZ dk ,slk dksbZ mn~ns'; ugha gS fd og fuekZ.k dk;Z u gksus ns vFkok vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds fuekZ.k dk;Z esa fdlh rjg dh :dkoV iSnk djsA t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk ;g lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro gS fd tks uD'kk vizkFkhZ la0 2 }kjk vuqeksfnr djk;k x;k] ml uD'ks ds vuqlkj ekSds ij fuekZ.k gks jgk gS ;k ugha\ bl ckr dk tk;tk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls ysuk vko';d gSA bl izdkj ds voS/kkfud fuekZ.k dks gVkus o jksds tkus dk iw.kZ mRrjnkf;Ro vizkFkhZ la0 1 dk gh gSA (Emphasis supplied)Players of the reference: vr% jsQjsUl izkFkhZ fo:) vizkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ la0 1 dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl izdkj ikcUn Qjek;k tkos fd og vizkFkhZ la0 2 }kjk dz;'kqnk Hkwfe [kljk ua0 722] 723] 825 o 826 fLFkr xzke fljlh] rglhy t;iqj] ftyk t;iqj ckcr vuqeksfnr uD'ks ls ckgj tkdj izkFkhZ o mlds HkkbZ;ksa ds LokfeRo dh Hkwfe [kljk ua0 708@3]724 xzke fljlh] rglhy t;iqj] ftyk t;iqj ij dksbZ voS/kkfud fuekZ.k vizkFkhZ la0 2 dks uk djus ns rFkk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks vfoyEc gVkosA vizkFkhZ la0 2 dks Hkh tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn Qjek;k tkos fd og Hkh vuqeksfnr uD'ks ls ckgj tkdj fdlh rjg dk dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z uk rks Lo;a djs] uk gh djkos ,oa izkFkhZ o mlds HkkbZ;ksa ds LokfeRo dh d`f"k Hkwfe esa fdlh rjg dh dksbZ n[kyUnkth vFkok gLr{ksi uk Lo;a djsa] uk gh djkos A (Emphasis supplied) odhy [kpkZ eqdnek vizkFkhZx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA vU; mfpr vuqrks"k tks cgd izkFkhZ U;k;ky; Jheku~ mfpr ,oa equkflc le>sa] ikfjr Qjek;saA Order dated 15.1.2008 esjs le{k /kkjk 111 jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 is'k gqbZA ftlesa ;g Li"V gS fd ;fn jktLo Hkwfe dh lhek dk dksbZ fookn gksxk rks Hkw&vfHkys[k vf/kdkjh ,sls fookn dk ;FkklEHko losZ uD'ks 3 ds vk/kkj ij o okLrfod dCts ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZj.k djsxkA /kkjk 111 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 dks ns[krs gq, ;g izkFkhZx.k ds d`f"k Hkwfe ds lhekadu dk ekeyk gSA t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ ekeyk ugha gS vkSj foi{kh la0 1 us ,slk dksbZ d`R; ;k yksi ugha fd;k gS ftldh f'kdk;r izkFkhZ dj ldsA vr% bl vf/kdj.k dks dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj rFkkdfFkr fookn lquus dk ugha gSA izkFkhZ pkgs rks mfpr l{ke eap esa viuk fookn fof/kuqlkj ys tkus dks LorU= gSA fdlh Hkh rjg ls ;g ugha ekuk tk;sxk fd bl vf/kdj.k esa dksbZ vof/k e;kZnk vf/kfu;e ds fo:) c<+k nh xbZ gksA rn~uqlkj ;g jsQjsUl [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 31. This Court passed interim orders on 2.11.2007 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007 and on 12.8.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008, which are as follows: ORDER dated 2.11.2007. "Put up on 13.11.2007 for final disposal at admission stage. Till then, the respondents are restrained from making any construction over the disputed land." ORDER dated 12.8.2008 "This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned J.D.A. Tribunal dismissing the reference application filed by the petitioner. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as prima facie case of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is aggrieved on account of the fact that the petitioner is the Khatedar of Khasra Nos. 708/3, 724, 823 and 824 which is adjacent to the land bearing Khasra Nos. 722, 723, 825 and 826 which was in the Khatedari of the respondent No. 3, who had purchased the said land which upon being surrendered in proceedings under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 permission was sought by the respondent No. 3 for construction of the group housing/flats over the said portion of his land and construction was started first of the road and then of the flats over the said portion. The petitioners' grievance was that the respondent while constructing the road and the flats had encroached the land in the Khatedari of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner inter alia submitted an application for a spot survey of the land before the Revenue Officials and a report Annexure I was prepared and in which as the site plan appended thereto which has been field as Annexure IA it was found that the respondent No. 3 has in possession of the parts of the Khasra Nos. 824, 724 and 800/3 upto about 52 feet. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent, the second survey was carried out, the report of which has been filed as Annexure 2 in which also it was found that the respondent had encroached upon the land of the petitioner though not to the extent as found in the first report Annexure I but upto about 37 feet. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent, the second survey was carried out, the report of which has been filed as Annexure 2 in which also it was found that the respondent had encroached upon the land of the petitioner though not to the extent as found in the first report Annexure I but upto about 37 feet. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner was not satisfied with the second report Annexure 2 but the fact remains that even as per the second report the respondent has been found to have encroached upon the land of the petitioner. It was also submitted that this second report Annexure 2 has not been challenged by the respondent in any forum. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that no encroachment has taken place and that the respondent has raised the construction strictly in accordance with the plans approved by the J.D.A. The respondent No. 3 has entered caveat but it is necessary to have the stand of the J.D.A. as the land which was in the Khatedari of the respondent No. 3, on account of the application being filed under Section 90-B was surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the law and stood vested in the J.D.A. Accordingly, notices are ordered to be issued to the respondent. Rule is made returnable within ten days. Notice be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the meanwhile, so far as the construction are concerned the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained in view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 2.11.2007 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007. List along with Contempt Petition No. 545/2007" 32. The crucial issue arising out of the reference application and subsequent construction is that whether the respondent No. 3 has made construction in accordance with the approved plan or not? 33. No reply to the aforesaid reference application before the Tribunal was filed by the J.D.A. nor inspection report nor any other document placed on record by it before the Tribunal. 33. No reply to the aforesaid reference application before the Tribunal was filed by the J.D.A. nor inspection report nor any other document placed on record by it before the Tribunal. Mere denial of the averments made in the Reference Application by the present respondent No. 3 (Non applicant No. 2 before the Tribunal) is not sufficient particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the firs part of injunction was sought against the respondent No. 2 J.D.A. on the ground that the J.D.A. has failed to discharge its duty vested under Sections 16(p), 54(2) and 83(8)(b) of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and proviso to duty of the J.D.A. to control and supervise the construction and to see that no construction be made contrary to the approved plan, Rules and Regulations. 34. The Tribunal, without examining the aforesaid crucial issue raised in the reference application seeking permanent injunction as per the aforesaid provisions of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and without there being any material placed by non applicants before it in order to substantiate their arguments, recorded the finding that there was no act or omission on the part of J.D.A. on merit also, which is perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and then wrongly dismissed the reference application for want of jurisdiction. 35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to take evidence of both the parties and then to decide the issue whether the construction made by the respondent No. 3 M/s. Joy Syndicate Enclave Pvt. Ltd. is in accordance with the approved plan or not. The Tribunal is further directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 83(8)(b) within a period of one and a half month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Till then the interim order dated 12.8.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008 shall continue.Contempt Petition Nos. 545/2007 and 512/2008 36. The Tribunal is further directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 83(8)(b) within a period of one and a half month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Till then the interim order dated 12.8.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008 shall continue.Contempt Petition Nos. 545/2007 and 512/2008 36. In the contempt petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the construction has been made over the disputed areas whereas learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that construction has been made as per the approved plan. 37. There is no finding on merit on the issue whether the construction has been made in accordance with the approved plan or not and without there being any decision on the merit of the aforesaid issue, therefore, the issue of compliance of the interim orders of not making construction on disputed land cannot be determined in the contempt petitions. 38. While allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008, as aforesaid, the order impugned dated 15.1.2008 has been quashed and set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid issue on merit, therefore, both the contempt petitions cannot be decided at this stage and the same be listed for hearing after the final disposal of the Reference Application No. 263/2007 by the Tribunal. 39. A photostat copy of this order be placed on the files of both the aforesaid contempt petitions separately.Petition allowed. *******