ORDER Sameer Jain, J. - The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2015, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 345/2012 titled as 'Smt. Shanta Pagaria vs. Jaipur Development Authority', whereby the contempt petition so filed by the petitioner for compliance of the erstwhile directions/orders dated 27.08.2004 and 31.07.2009, was rejected. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very foundation of the order impugned dated 06.08.2015 is illegal and perverse, when juxtaposed with the factual matrix of the instant matter. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while rejecting the contempt petition so preferred by the petitioner, the learned Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal (hereinafter, Tribunal) has misplaced reliance upon the judgment of this Court enunciated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13084/2009 titled as Rakesh Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. To substantiate upon the said misplaced reliance by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide the said judgment, this Court observed that all public property so earmarked must be used for public purposes only. Furthermore, this Court, in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) had also directed the State of Rajasthan to ensure that no encroachments are made on public properties earmarked for public use. In essence, the ratio decidendi of the said judgment pertained to prevention of land grabbing viz-a-viz public land meant for public use. 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject property in the instant petition was legally purchased by the petitioner in the Year 1968 from the erstwhile owner, Mr. Jeevan Singh vide sale deed dated 20.05.1968 and ever since the execution of the said sale deed, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property. Therefore, as the judgment in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) directs against misuse of public land by land grabbers and not legal purchasers of private property, the reliance so placed upon the same by the learned Tribunal is misplaced/flawed. Furthermore, in order to substantiate upon the private nature of the subject property, learned counsel for the petitioner averred that the subject property was relieved from being 'facility area' in the Year 2009, much prior to the judgment of Rakesh Sharma (Supra) passed on 07.07.2011. Furthermore, in order to substantiate upon the private nature of the subject property, learned counsel for the petitioner averred that the subject property was relieved from being 'facility area' in the Year 2009, much prior to the judgment of Rakesh Sharma (Supra) passed on 07.07.2011. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that as is apparent from the letter dated 26.06.2014, the JDA has shown its inability to issue patta qua the subject property to the petitioner, not traversing the fact that the subject property admittedly has been relieved from being a 'facility area' by the JDA itself in the Year 2009 i.e. two years prior to the passing of the judgement in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), as erroneously relied upon by the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the contempt petition preferred by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, in this background, learned counsel for the petitioner conclusively contended that the impugned actions of the respondent-JDA in not issuing patta qua the subject property to the petitioner are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as the issue at hand has been maliciously dragged and elongated by the respondent-JDA for numerous years, despite specific orders of the learned Tribunal qua the private nature of the land and the same not being a 'facility area', as passed in the Years 2004 and 2009. Hence, relying upon the arguments noted herein-above, it was contended that the order impugned be quashed and set aside and patta qua the subject property be issued to the petitioner expeditiously. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-JDA has categorically submitted that the JDA has handed over the records qua the instant matter to the Nagar Nigam, which is the contesting party herein, as on date. However, while taking the said submission as an alternative, learned counsel for the JDA as well as Nagar Nigam have furnished a reply on merits, contending that the respondent-JDA is bound to not release the subject property from being a 'facility area', especially in light of the judgment of this Court as enunciated in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). However, while taking the said submission as an alternative, learned counsel for the JDA as well as Nagar Nigam have furnished a reply on merits, contending that the respondent-JDA is bound to not release the subject property from being a 'facility area', especially in light of the judgment of this Court as enunciated in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). Whilst making the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent-JDA duly admitted to the fact that the subject property was released from being a 'facility area' on 02.03.2009 in its BPC Meeting and on the basis of such undertaking, notices in the contempt petition so filed by the petitioner were discharged. However, the said undertaking of the respondent-JDA qua the subject property not forming part of 'facility area' has no force subsequent to the passing of the order dated 07.07.2011 in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), as the undertaking so submitted by the JDA would consequently be in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the above-referred case. Learned counsel further submitted that on the examination of the facts of the instant petition with the facts enumerated in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), it is evident that the petitioner's case is identical to that of the affected party in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) in as much as the petitioner purchased the subject property via a registered sale deed and as per the petitioner, the subject property has been wrongly demarcated as 'facility area'. 6. Therefore, in this background, learned counsel for the respondent-JDA submitted that due to the similarities in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter and those forming the factual matrix in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), the respondent-JDA was unable to issue a patta to the petitioner. As a result, whilst praying for the dismissal of the instant petition, it was conclusively submitted that the ratio determined by this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) is applicable in the case of the present petitioner and accordingly, the principle of estoppel cannot be applied dehors the law. Hence, as a result, the relief(s) as sought by the petitioner, are liable to be turned down whilst dismissing the instant petition. In support of the contentions raised hereinabove, reliance was placed on the judgements passed in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) and Union of India and Ors. vs. Unicorn Industries reported in 2019 (368) ELT 202 (SC). 7. Hence, as a result, the relief(s) as sought by the petitioner, are liable to be turned down whilst dismissing the instant petition. In support of the contentions raised hereinabove, reliance was placed on the judgements passed in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) and Union of India and Ors. vs. Unicorn Industries reported in 2019 (368) ELT 202 (SC). 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the instant petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar. 8. Upon a considered perusal of the record of the instant petition, the following facts, germane for the efficacious adjudication of the instant petition, are noted herein-under:- 8.1. That the petitioner purchased a piece of land i.e. Plot No. 56 at Keshav Nagar, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur vide a sale deed dated 20.05.1968, as executed between the petitioner-Late Smt. Shanta Pagaria and Shri. Jeevan Singh wherein the consideration paid to the latter was to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, following which all the legal rights with respect to the subject property were conferred in favour of the petitioner. (Re: Annexure-3). 8.2. That subsequent to the execution of the said sale deed, the petitioner has been in the continuous and unhindered possession of the subject property, acting as its owner and caretaker. With regards to the said aspect, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner made a further payment of Rs. 10,000/- in the Year 1982 for the conversion of the subject property from 'Agricultural' to 'Residential'. (Re: Annexure-4). 8.3. That the petitioner constructed a small room at the subject property, which was repaired in the Year 1987. Pursuant to the said reparation, the petitioner received notices from the respondent-JDA stating that the petitioner had undertaken illegal construction at the subject property, without obtaining prior approval from the respondent-JDA. However, it is pertinent to note that in the said notice so served upon the petitioner, no mention qua the subject property being 'facility area' was incorporated. (Re: Annexure-8). 8.4. That it is germane to note that subsequent to the issuance of the said notice, the petitioner also paid Land and Building Tax qua the subject property in the Year 2000. (Re: Annexure-9). 8.5. (Re: Annexure-8). 8.4. That it is germane to note that subsequent to the issuance of the said notice, the petitioner also paid Land and Building Tax qua the subject property in the Year 2000. (Re: Annexure-9). 8.5. That the fact of the petitioner being in active, continuous and unhindered possession of the subject property since the Year 1968 is also reflected by the fact that in the Year 2000, the petitioner filed an FIR No. 319/2000 against her neighbor, who was causing damage to the boundary wall of the petitioner and as a result, attempting to encroach upon the subject property. (Re: Annexure-9A). 8.6. That subsequently, in the Year 2001, the respondent-JDA published an advertisement in the newspaper for the regularization of numerous pieces of land. However, in the said advertisement, the subject property was not included. 8.7. That upon the subject property not being included in the list of pieces of land being regularized, the petitioner put forth a representation before the U.D.H Minister as well as the respondent-JDA authorities, requesting that the subject property be released from 'facility area'. (Re: Annexures 11 and 12 respectively). 8.8. That following the aforesaid representations, the petitioner received a communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Zone 1 JDA intimating her that the subject property cannot be relieved from the 'facility area' as per the decision taken in the 23rd BPC meeting dated 19.06.2002 and rather, the same would be auctioned. (Re: Annexure-AA1, filed via Additional Affidavit dated 14.02.2023, Inward No. 14407/2023). 8.9. That being aggrieved of the said decision qua the subject property not being released from 'facility area' and rather alternatively being auctioned by the JDA i.e. an action being contrary to the fact of its inclusion in 'facility area', the petitioner filed an appeal numbered as 140/2002 before the JDA Tribunal. (Re: Annexure-16) 8.10. That in the appeal so filed, interim relief was granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2002 and as a result, the decision arrived at in the 23rd BPC meeting, as referred above, was stayed and status quo was directed to be maintained. (Re: Annexure-15). 8.11. That subsequently, vide order dated 27.08.2004, the learned Tribunal, after having heard both the sides, discarded the resolution of the 23rd BPC Meeting qua the non-release of the subject property from 'facility area' and rather auctioning the same. (Re: Annexure-15). 8.11. That subsequently, vide order dated 27.08.2004, the learned Tribunal, after having heard both the sides, discarded the resolution of the 23rd BPC Meeting qua the non-release of the subject property from 'facility area' and rather auctioning the same. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that the respondent-JDA on the one hand had notified the subject property as 'facility area' and on the other hand, tried to auction the same property i.e. the action qua auctioning the subject property being contrary to the very stance taken by the JDA regarding the subject property constituting 'facility area'. As a result, the said action was deemed to be impermissible. (Re: Annexure-17). 8.12. That vide the aforementioned order dated 27.08.2004, the learned Tribunal held that the decision as arrived at the 23rd BPC Meeting was non-speaking in nature, as no legal provisions for reaching the said decisions were mentioned in the resolution. In this regard, it was noted that the subject property was purchased in the Year 1968 when the respondent-JDA did not even exist. Moreover, there was no mention in the resolution encapsulating the reason as to why the subject property was included in the 'facility area'. In connection with the said observation, the learned Tribunal also noted that in the same very 23rd BPC Meeting, another piece of land i.e. Plot No. 30 was removed from facility area but not the subject property, without furnishing any reason qua the said action whatsoever. The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to plead her case qua the removal of the subject property from 'facility area', contrary to Rule 27(6) of the Jaipur Development Authority Rules. As a result, the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2004, while discarding the resolution adopted at the 23rd BPC Meeting, referred the matter back to the respondent-JDA with specific directions to resolve the issue qua the subject property within a period of two months since the date of referral. (Re: Annexure-17) 8.13. That subsequently, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent-JDA in order to seek compliance of the directions of the learned Tribunal to get the issue qua the subject property resolved within a period of two months. 8.14. (Re: Annexure-17) 8.13. That subsequently, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent-JDA in order to seek compliance of the directions of the learned Tribunal to get the issue qua the subject property resolved within a period of two months. 8.14. That upon the lapse of one year since the passing of the order dated 27.08.2004, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 439/2005 before the learned Tribunal, for non-compliance of the aforesaid order. (Re: Annexure-21). 8.15. That in the reply to the said contempt petition, the respondent-JDA duly admitted the delay on their part in resolving the issue at hand, despite specific directions of the Tribunal, citing administrative difficulties. It is also noted that the reply so furnished by the respondent-JDA was also with a delay of approximately one year since the contempt furnished/actuated. Furthermore, in the said reply, it was averred that on 02.03.2009, the matter qua the subject property was referred to the State Government for adjudication citing the ground that if the subject property is relieved from the 'facility area', then the total residential area of the concerned locality would be around 66.86% and on that premise, if the other 'facility areas' were also asked to be released, then the total residential area would tantamount to 78.1%, whereas the maximum/cap residential area permissible to be allotted by the JDA is at 75% (Re: Annexure-22). 8.16. That after having heard both the sides in the above-referred contempt petition, the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31.07.2009, taking note of the undertaking furnished by the respondent-JDA qua the decision to release the subject property from 'facility area', disposed of the contempt petition. While doing so, the learned Tribunal reprimanded the respondent-JDA's officers for their pick and choose actions and conduct, resulting in causing hindrance to the property of a senior citizen, who had in her possession all the valid documents ascertaining her rightful ownership of the subject property (Re: Annexure-28). 8.17. That pursuant to the passing of the order dated 31.07.2009 and the undertaking so furnished by the respondent-JDA, the State Government categorically directed the respondent-JDA, vide order dated 12.10.2009, to relieve the subject property from 'facility area'(Re: Annexure-29). 8.18. 8.17. That pursuant to the passing of the order dated 31.07.2009 and the undertaking so furnished by the respondent-JDA, the State Government categorically directed the respondent-JDA, vide order dated 12.10.2009, to relieve the subject property from 'facility area'(Re: Annexure-29). 8.18. That in this background, after the issuance of the directions of the State Government qua relieving the subject property from 'facility area', even the Map of the concerned area drawn in the Year 2011, reflected the subject property to have been released from 'facility area', along with certain adjoining pieces of land as well. The said map was duly undersigned by the respondent-JDA, referring to the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the State Government (Re: Annexure-31). 8.19. That despite such categoric release of the subject property from the 'facility area' as per the map referred above in addition to the categoric directions issued by the State Government to that effect, the petitioner despite having made representations before the JDA for seeking patta qua the subject property, was not met with any reply/answer. Rather, the representations made by the petitioner for obtaining the patta of the subject property were deferred and/or delayed, as is reflected by way Annexure-32. 8.20. That being aggrieved of the unexplained delay on the part of the respondent-JDA in granting the petitioner patta qua the subject property, despite the lapse of three years since the decision to that effect was taken by the State Government i.e. on 12.10.2009 as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed another contempt petition numbering 345/2012 for compliance of the erstwhile orders dated 12.10.2009 and 31.07.2009. 8.21. That thereafter, the respondent-JDA intimated the petitioner qua the non-grant of patta to the petitioner for the subject property, in light of the decision of this Court as arrived at in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). (Re: Annexure 1 and 2) 8.22. That meanwhile, the reply to the contempt petition numbering 345/2012 was furnished by the respondent-JDA in the Year 2014 i.e. with a delay of two years, wherein reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). (Re: Annexure-37). 8.23. That pursuant to the furnishing of the said reply, the learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 06.08.2015 proceeded to discard Contempt Petition No. 345/2012 titled as 'Smt. Shanta Pagaria vs. Jaipur Development Authority', in light of the decision of this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). (Re: Annexure-37). 8.23. That pursuant to the furnishing of the said reply, the learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 06.08.2015 proceeded to discard Contempt Petition No. 345/2012 titled as 'Smt. Shanta Pagaria vs. Jaipur Development Authority', in light of the decision of this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). As a result, being aggrieved, the instant petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.08.2015. 9. In the preceding factual matrix, three admitted and pivotal factual considerations, encompassing the crux of the issue at hand, are noted to be as under:- a. That vide order dated 27.08.2004, the learned Tribunal, duly discarded the resolution adopted at the 23rd BPC Meeting qua the non-release of the subject property from the 'facility area' citing the contrary stance taken by the respondent-JDA in as much as the latter classified the subject property as being 'facility area' whilst connoting the same to be auctioned. In the said order, it was also noted that the respondent-JDA had not furnished any explanation demonstrating the rationale behind the inclusion of the subject property in the 'facility area', not having given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. b. That in the Contempt Petition No. 439/2005, the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31.07.2009, took note of the undertaking furnished by the respondent-JDA wherein it was averred that the respondent-JDA had taken a decision to release the subject property from the 'facility area'. It was only upon the furnishing of the said undertaking by the JDA that the contempt petition was disposed of. c. That pursuant to the passing of the order dated 31.07.2009 and the undertaking so furnished by the respondent-JDA, the State Government also categorically directed the respondent-JDA, vide order dated 12.10.2009, to relieve the subject property from 'facility area'. Therefore, having taken note of the preceding admitted factual matrix, it is noted that the stance qua the subject property being released from 'facility area' was duly admitted by the respondent-JDA. Moreover, to that effect, even the State Government had directed the respondent-JDA to relieve the subject property from the 'facility area'. It is further admitted that no challenge was raised by the respondent-JDA against the orders dated 27.08.2004 and 31.07.2009, as passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the decision of the State Government dated 12.10.2009. Moreover, to that effect, even the State Government had directed the respondent-JDA to relieve the subject property from the 'facility area'. It is further admitted that no challenge was raised by the respondent-JDA against the orders dated 27.08.2004 and 31.07.2009, as passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the decision of the State Government dated 12.10.2009. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the aforementioned orders had attained finality and were binding on the respondent-JDA for effecting due compliance. However, in this regard, the only explanation furnished by the respondent-JDA qua the non-compliance of the preceding orders coupled with the consequent non-release of patta qua the subject property in favour of the petitioner, pertained to the legal obstruction being placed before the respondent-JDA by way of the decision of this Court as rendered in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). 10. Therefore, at this juncture, to adequately address the dispute at hand, this Court must now undertake the task of analyzing the decision of this Court as arrived in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) in order to ascertain whether the ratio arrived at therein precludes the respondent-JDA from releasing the subject property from 'facility area' and consequently, issuing patta qua the same in favour of the petitioner. 11. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the decision arrived at by this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), vide order dated 07.07.2011, is quoted herein-under: 'We, therefore, while setting aside the order Annexure-1 passed by the State Government, direct that the J.D.A shall immediately take possession of the plot in issue and shall develop the same for the purpose for which it was earmarked i.e., Children Park. We also direct that the State Government shall take steps to see that all over the State wherever such reserved areas have been earmarked, the State/local body shall take care to see that they are developed for the purpose for which they were reserved so that no unscrupulous land grabber can connive with the conniving State officials to take possession of the land meant for public use. The action shall be taken immediately and the report shall be submitted to this Court within a period of three months from the date of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Looking to the misstatement of facts of facts made by respondent no.4, as regard the civil court's judgment, we impose exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent. The action shall be taken immediately and the report shall be submitted to this Court within a period of three months from the date of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Looking to the misstatement of facts of facts made by respondent no.4, as regard the civil court's judgment, we impose exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent. Cost, if realized, shall be utilized for the development of the children park in issue.' 12. Upon a considered perusal of the judgment passed in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to observe that in the said case, it was noted that all public property so earmarked must be used for public purposes. The intent as well as purpose behind the said directive was to curtail land grabbing by way of taking possession of land meant for public use. The key connotation therein being 'public land'. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the subject property, as exhibited above by way of Annexure-3, was legally purchased by the petitioner in the Year 1968 and thereafter, has been continuously maintained by the petitioner as well. Thus, the order of this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) which restrains land grabbers from taking possession of earmarked public land, shall not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner is the legal purchaser of the subject property, as opposed to being a land grabber. Therefore, it is noted that the order dated 07.07.2011 passed in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) does not stop a rightful owner to claim their land in anyway. Rather, it merely envisages non-grabbing of public land by land grabbers in connivance with the conniving State officials, altering the usage of earmarked public land. 13. Furthermore, flowing from the germane factual considerations noted above, it is observed that the subject property had already been relieved from 'facility area' in the Year 2009, pursuant to the undertaking furnished by the respondent-JDA as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 31.07.2009 along with directions issued by the State Government for the release of the subject property from 'facility area' on 12.10.2009. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge having been raised against the foregoing orders/directions, the same had attained finality and constituted binding precedence upon the respondent JDA. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge having been raised against the foregoing orders/directions, the same had attained finality and constituted binding precedence upon the respondent JDA. Therefore, in logical consonance with the aforesaid, it is observed that the learned Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 345/2012, while passing the order impugned dated 06.08.2015, erred in placing reliance upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). 14. Compounding upon the observations made herein-above, this Court also deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition, on the following grounds read cumulatively:- 14.1. That even in the map of the respondent-JDA, as drawn in the Year 2011 i.e. Annexure-31, the subject property is admittedly reflected to have been released from the 'facility area'. 14.2. That even before the decision of Rakesh Sharma (Supra) was pronounced on 07.07.2011, the learned Tribunal had already held that the subject property was to be released from the 'facility area', vide order dated 31.07.2009. 14.3. That vide letter dated 26.06.2014, the JDA has shown its inability to issue patta qua the subject property to the petitioner, while not traversing the fact that the subject property admittedly has been relieved from being a 'facility area' by the JDA itself in the Year 2009 i.e. two years prior to the passing of the judgement in Rakesh Sharma (Supra). Therefore, the purported inability of the JDA in not issuing patta to the petition in light of the said decision, is misconceived and the reliance placed thereupon, is misplaced. 14.4. That during the sustenance of the entire proceedings initiating in the Year 2001 till the culmination of the same before the learned Tribunal in the Year 2015, the respondent-JDA categorically failed in exhibiting in any form as to the considerations/requirements which led to the subject property being treated as 'facility area'. Even in the reply so furnished by the JDA in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as in both the contempt petitions, no effort was made on behalf of the respondent-JDA to demonstrate as to why and when the subject property was included in 'facility area' for public use, despite the sale deed dated 20.05.1968 along with other relevant records categorically reflecting the nature of the subject property to be of private ownership. Such conduct on part of the respondent-JDA is by and large enough for this Court to draw an adverse inference regarding the prima facie malice and wanton discrimination by the JDA in the abuse of its power and process, compelling the petitioner to run pillar to post for the issuance of patta qua the subject property, despite having legitimate rights born out of the decisions of the learned Tribunal as well as the admissions of the respondent-JDA, as noted above. 15. Therefore, relying upon the observations made herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate that while passing the order impugned dated 06.08.2015, the learned Tribunal erred in placing reliance upon the decision of this Court as enunciated in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) for the reason that the said judgement was passed in public interest litigation wherein the lingering question before the Court pertained to encroachment of earmarked public land i.e. Children's Park, by land grabbers in connivance with State Officials. Whereas, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the subject property as exhibited above by way of Annexure-3, was legally purchased by the petitioner in the Year 1968 and thereafter, has been continuously maintained by the petitioner as well. Thus, the order of this Court in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) which restrains land grabbers from taking possession of earmarked public land, shall not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner is a legal purchaser of the subject property, as opposed to being a land grabber. Therefore, it is noted that the order dated 07.07.2011 passed in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) does not stop a rightful owner to claim their land in anyway. Rather, it merely envisages non-grabbing of public land by land grabbers in connivance with the conniving State officials, altering the usage of earmarked public land. 16. Hence, relying upon the findings and/or observations referred above, this Court is inclined to allow the instant petition, in terms of the prayers made therein. While doing so, this Court also deems it appropriate to direct the respondent-JDA to release the patta qua the subject property in favour of the petitioner and regularize the subject property, within an upper limit of two months. Accordingly, the order dated 06.08.2015 and letter dated 26.06.2014 are quashed and set aside. 17. While doing so, this Court also deems it appropriate to direct the respondent-JDA to release the patta qua the subject property in favour of the petitioner and regularize the subject property, within an upper limit of two months. Accordingly, the order dated 06.08.2015 and letter dated 26.06.2014 are quashed and set aside. 17. It is made clear that if the respondent-JDA fails to comply with the aforesaid directions in the encompassed time duration of two months, cost to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be imposed upon the respondent-JDA. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.