Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 716 (RAJ)

Ramswaroop v. Jaipur Development Authority

2022-03-02

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2022
ORDER 1. Petitioner - Ram Swaroop has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 inter-alia praying therein that order dated 20.7.2007 and the order of regularization dated 14.12.2006 may be quashed and set aside and the respondent - Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'JDA') be directed not to issue any patta in pursuance of the so-called regularization. Same petitioner - Ram Swaroop has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7/2016 inter-alia praying therein that the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Authorized Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and the order dated 8.9.2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No.37/2015 may be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to record land in dispute in the name of the petitioner in revenue record. 2. Petitioner-Ram Swaroop and others have preferred S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.365/2008 aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2008 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed by the Court below and the suit was rejected. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.322/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 has been filed by petitioner - Ram Swaroop praying therein that the respondents be declared guilty for the non- compliance of the interim order of the High Court dated 13.9.2007 and to punish the respondents suitably considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The dispute in all these petitions pertains to land situated in Village Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur situated in Khasra No.122/123 measuring 2 bigha 7 biswa, Khasra No.125 measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa, Khasra No.127 measuring 5 biswa, Khasra No.128 measuring 2 bigha 12 biswa, Khasra No.133 measuring 21 bigha, Khasra No.134 measuring 8 bigha 1 biswa, Khasra No.134/432 measuring 2 biswa; the total Khasra numbers are 8 and total land is measuring about 37 bigha 18 biswas in which share of Govind Ram was 1/5th i.e. total disputed land is around 7 bighas. The subject matter of the dispute in all these petitions being the above land, the same are being decided by this common order. 4. The factual matrix of the case are that an agreement to sell was executed on a stamp of Rs.10 by Govind Ram in favour of Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') on 30.12.1995 at an agreeable consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- per bigha. In the agreement, Govind Ram admitted that the land was being sold for his and for his family's need. In the agreement, Govind Ram admitted that the land was being sold for his and for his family's need. The time period for payment of the entire consideration was upto 31.3.1997. The right to develop a scheme & to allot the land, right to get the documents registered and the right to get the land converted were given in the agreement. Different payment receipts and bank statements point out towards the payment having been made to Govind Ram in lieu of the sale agreement. In 1999, the Society submitted a list of members and an application was filed by the Society under Section 90-B of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'). Public notices were published in 'Dainik Navjyoti' and 'Mahka Bharat' under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 read with Section 63 of the Tenancy Act on 8.12.2005. One of the co- shares filed objections on 12.12.2005. Vide order dated 19.12.2005, the Authorized Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Zone- VII, JDA, Jaipur noted that there was violation of Section 90-B(1) of the Act of 1956 and directed to record the land in the name of JDA. Govind Ram expired on 15.9.2006. The scheme plan was approved by the JDA on 26.10.2006. Notification dated 4.12.2006 under Section 25(3) was published in the newspapers issued by the JDA regarding change in Master Plan-2011 for subject matter from commercial to residential and seven days' time was given for submission of the objections. On 14.12.2006 regularization of the scheme of the Society was approved. The petitioner preferred a reference under the JDA Act on 11.12.2006 on the ground that the agreement was fabricated, notice was not served on the applicant and Govind Ram had no right to sell the entire ancestral property, as he can only sell his part of the share. The reference was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2007. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 is filed assailing the above order. 5. Petitioner - Ram Swaroop has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7/2016 aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 8.9.2015 whereby challenge to the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Court of Authorized Officer and Upayukt JDA was declined. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner - Ram Swaroop that the agreement to sell was not registered and properly stamped, so it was not admissible in evidence. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner - Ram Swaroop that the agreement to sell was not registered and properly stamped, so it was not admissible in evidence. It is also contended that no personal notice was served upon petitioner - Ram Swaroop in relation to proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. There was no signature of Govind Ram on the service report of the notice issued under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 and only thumb impression was there. It is further contended that public notices were published in newspapers, which were not having wide circulation in the vicinity. It is also contended that the property was ancestral property and co-parcener right cannot be sold by father and hence, the agreement is forged and fake and not binding upon petitioner. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for JDA and Society that the agreement to sell was a notarized agreement and as per Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, proceedings can be initiated on an agreement to sell and registration thereof is not necessary. It is also contended that Govind Ram executed the agreement, money was received by him and was also deposited in his bank account. It is further contended that petitioner - Ram Swaroop is taking different stands in different petitions. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6304/2007, petitioner's case was that father of the petitioner was the khatedar of 1/5th share in the disputed khasra numbers whereas, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7/2016, case of petitioner - Ram Swaroop is that the land is ancestral land. 8. It is contended that in Civil Suit No.33/2007 titled as Rajendra Kumar Sharma Versus Pappu Lal and others in which Ram Swaroop and his brothers were the defendants, the trial Court has held that the proceedings carried out by JDA under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 are valid. It was also held that Ram Swaroop and his brothers are not entitled to have their share partitioned by metes and bounds. 9. It is contended that the issues have been decided against Ram Swaroop vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2019. Copy of the judgment and decree was placed before the Court and Ram Swaroop and his brothers have not filed any appeal against the said judgment and decree. 9. It is contended that the issues have been decided against Ram Swaroop vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2019. Copy of the judgment and decree was placed before the Court and Ram Swaroop and his brothers have not filed any appeal against the said judgment and decree. The fact of passing of the judgment and decree was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is contended by learned counsel for the Society that plots have been allotted to the allottees and they have raised construction on the land and pattas were issued in regularization camps. It is also contended that the entire proceedings carried out by the JDA are in accordance with law. A notice was published in Dainik Navjyoti, which has wide circulation in the region. It is further contended that one of the co-sharers has filed objections, which goes to show that the notice was served and was also received by the objectors. It is contended that Govind Ram never raised any objection during his lifetime and soon after his death and after the plan was approved by the JDA and notifications were issued, that the present petitioner has raised objection. 11. I have considered the submissions. 12. The fact of execution of agreement to sell and deposit of sale consideration, is established from the documents available on record. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no registered sale deed and on the basis of agreement to sell, no rights can be transferred, do not have any force for the very reason that Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 itself provides that any person, holding any land for agricultural purposes in urbanisable 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 a 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 resumed. Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 therefore provides for termination of rights even when an agreement to sell has been executed. Thus, a registered sale deed is not necessary for proceeding under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. 13. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner had not executed the agreement to sell and a forged document has been created, cannot be accepted for the very reason that the agreement to sell was executed in 1995, the sale consideration was paid in the account of father of the petitioner and till his demise, he never objected or raised any grievance with regard to the alleged agreement to sell. The next objection of the counsel for the petitioner that notices were published in the newspapers, which are not having wide circulation cannot be sustained for the very reason that newspapers 'Dainik Navjyoti' has vide circulation in the region. Moreover, one of the co-tenants had even filed objection meaning thereby that it was a public notice. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that notices were not served in accordance with Sections 59 and 96 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, cannot be accepted for the very reason that notices were duly served on father of the petitioner and his thumb impression is there on the service report. 14. It is pertinent to note that petitioner - Ram Swaroop has taken different stands in the petitions presented before this Court. In one of the petitions, his stand is that the property is ancestral property and he has right as a coparcener whereas in the other set of petition, he has pleaded that property belonged to his father and forged agreement to sell was created. Admittedly, petitioner's father - Govind Ram had 1/5 share in the disputed property and he was a khatedar tenant of 1/5 share of the said land. The issue with regard to right of the petitioner and his brothers on the land of which petitioner's father was having 1/5 share as a khatedar tenant was dealt with by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.33/2007 and it was decided by the Court below that the proceedings carried out by the JDA under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 are valid. The Court has also held that the petitioner and his brothers are not entitled to get the property divided by metes and bounds. The said judgment and decree has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred by petitioner against the said judgment and decree. 15. It is further pertinent to note that after the resumption of the land, a scheme has been developed and pattas have been issued and constructions have been raised thereupon by the plot owners. It is also evident that the JDA has resumed the land as it was being used for non-agricultural purposes and even assuming that there was no agreement to sell still the JDA had power to resume the land as it was being used for non-agricultural purposes. 16. The original khatedar executed the agreement to sell in 1995 and during his lifetime, he did not take any objection and it was only after his death that for the first time petitioner has raised objection to the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the agreement to sell was forged and this issue stands finally decided by the Civil Court. 17. The contention that the acquisition of the land is illegal also stands decided against the petitioner in Civil Suit No.33/2007 wherein the Court has held that there is no illegality in the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief with regard to resumption of the land by the JDA as there is no illegality in the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Authorized Officer, JDA. Similarly, the Divisional Commissioner has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 8.9.2015 so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, I do not find any force in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7/2016. 18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 wherein prayer is made for directing the JDA not to issue any patta in pursuance of the regularization also does not have any force as the order of regularization has been passed in furtherance of the orders under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. 18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6340/2007 wherein prayer is made for directing the JDA not to issue any patta in pursuance of the regularization also does not have any force as the order of regularization has been passed in furtherance of the orders under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated by the JDA were strictly in accordance with the Act and they have not committed any illegality in resuming the land and in regularizing the scheme. The JDA Appellate Tribunal has also not committed any error in rejecting the reference preferred by the petitioner. There is no illegality whatsoever in the order dated 20.7.2007 so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 19. This Court also does not find any force in the regular first appeal for the very reason that issue stands decided between the parties after the judgment and decree dated 4.11.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.33/2007 wherein the objection with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell was not sustained and the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 were held to be valid. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no case whatsoever. Hence, this Court deems it proper to dismiss the regular first appeal and discharge the contempt notices. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.6340/2007, Writ Petition No.7/2016, Regular First Appeal No.365/2008 are dismissed. Notices issued in Contempt Petition are discharged. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No.322/2008 is also dismissed. 20. All the pending applications stand disposed of.