Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2130 (RAJ)

Govind Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-11

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN I, PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 13.07.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition with a prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, Notification dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure-4), passed by Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to decide the representation dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure-9) filed by the petitioner-appellant. Learned Single Judge, after considering submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, came to a conclusion that no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in the instant case and the writ petition is totally frivolous and baseless and dismissed the same. Hence, this intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is in possession of land in dispute and the Notification dated 07.05.2010(Annexure-4) is illegal. The appellant filed earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10395/2010, which was disposed off by learned Single Judge on 02.08.2010 with liberty to the appellant to file a representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of its submission, in accordance with law, but the same has not been disposed off, therefore, impugned Notification dated 07.05.2010 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to decide the representation dated 31.08.2010(Annexure-9) filed by the appellant in pursuance of order dated 02.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10395/2010 and till then, order of status quo may be passed in respect of land in dispute. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined impugned order as well as other documents placed on record including order dated 02.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10395/2010. 6. So far as Notification dated 07.05.2010 is concerned, it has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982(for short 'the Act'). 6. So far as Notification dated 07.05.2010 is concerned, it has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982(for short 'the Act'). Sub-section (3) of Section 39 of the Act prescribes that not later than two years from the date of publication of the declaration under sub-section (2) the Authority shall prepare a project or scheme in draft from and publish it in such form and manner as may be determined by regulations together with a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the said draft project or scheme before such date as may be specified therein, such date being not earlier than thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. 7. Under sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Act, it is prescribed that the Authority shall consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (3) and shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to such persons affected thereby as are desirous of being heard, approve the draft project or scheme as published or make such modifications, as it may deem fit. 8. The above provisions make it clear that the appellant will have a right to file objections and suggestions under sub-section (3) of Section 39 of the Act and the same will be considered by the Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Act, therefore, at this stage, present intra-court appeal cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed as premature. 9. So far as representation dated 31.08.2010(Annexure-9) filed by the appellant is concerned, the same has been filed in pursuance of order dated 02.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10395/2010. Although, said representation should have been decided by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of its submission, but in case the same has not been decided, then proper remedy for the appellant was to file a contempt petition for disobedience of order dated 02.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge and no such direction can be issued afresh in the present intra-Court appeal. 10. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this intra-Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******