ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- “i) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction or nature thereof thereby, to direct the respondents to issue/allot the patta/lease deed of Plot No.8, Tara Nagar-B, Jhotwara, Jaipur in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect treating the said plot to be residential in nature excluding the same from the category of facility area; ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner; iii) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The writ petition has been filed with following facts : 2.1 On 11.07.1981, the Mutual Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur allotted a residential Plot No.8, Tara Nagar-B, Jhotwara, Jaipur measuring 373 sq. yrds (for brevity “the plot in question”) to one Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Hari Narayan and issued patta in his favour. The cooperative society, after making allotment has forwarded the list of allottees to JDA, Jaipur, which also contains the name of the original allottee Shri Ashok Kumar. 2.3 Present petitioner purchased the said plot through registered sale deed dated 02.01.1986 and raised construction of residential house thereupon. Petitioner’s family has been residing in the said house from last four decades. 2.4 Petitioner applied to JDA, Jaipur on 11.12.2000 for issuance of lease deed and also deposited requisite fee for the same. However, the respondent - JDA vide order dated 01.03.2005 has refused to grant the lease deed in favour of the petitioner stating inter alia that the said plot forms part of the facility area shown in the layout plan. 2.5 Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Appellate Tribunal decided the said appeal vide order dated 15.06.2006 and recorded a clear finding that in the said facility area, the other five plots have already been regularized, therefore, the action of the JDA, Jaipur in not issuing lease deed in favour of petitioner is not legally valid and sustainable in the eye of law. On such observation, the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the JDA, Jaipur and directed to pass appropriate orders upon the application to be filed by the petitioner along with all the necessary documents. On such observation, the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the JDA, Jaipur and directed to pass appropriate orders upon the application to be filed by the petitioner along with all the necessary documents. 2.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the decision of the JDA, Jaipur dated 01.09.2006 whereby it was resolved not to challenge the order dated 15.06.2006. Thus, the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal attained finality. 2.7 It is further averred that in pursuance of the order dated 15.06.2006, petitioner already submitted application along with the necessary documents to the JDA, however, no action, after remand, was taken by the JDA. 2.8 In the meantime, the area in question was transferred to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and therefore, the petitioner submitted a fresh application to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation for issuance of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. However, the Empowered Committee of Jaipur Municipal Corporation in its decision dated 26.12.2017 has again rejected the application of the petitioner on the same ground that the plot of the petitioner forms part of the facility area. 2.9 Challenging the said action, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application that the plot in question falls within the facility area, has already been declared as illegal by the Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rejection of petitioner’s application on the same ground is not tenable in the eye of law. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the area in question which was earlier within the jurisdiction of the JDA, was later on transferred to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and therefore, all the files relating to the said area were also transferred to the respondent - Corporation. In such circumstances, once the Jaipur Municipal Corporation stepped into the shoes of the JDA, the respondent - Corporation is bound by the judgment dated 15.06.2006 passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal and cannot be permitted to take a contrary view. In such circumstances, once the Jaipur Municipal Corporation stepped into the shoes of the JDA, the respondent - Corporation is bound by the judgment dated 15.06.2006 passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal and cannot be permitted to take a contrary view. 3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the action of the respondents clearly amounts to hostile discrimination as other seven plots in the same facility area has already been regularized in favour of the respective allottees and therefore, denial of the same treatment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as a matter of act, the majority of the land (seven out of eight plots) forming part of the facility area has already been allotted for residential purposes, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served in not issuing the lease deed regarding the petitioner’s plot, which is only measuring 373 Sq. yrds and the same alone cannot be used for the facility area. 3.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the residential house so constructed upon the plot in question is only place of shelter for the petitioner’s family and they are residing over the same from last four decades. Therefore also, the action of respondents in not issuing the lease deed of the petitioner’s plot is not tenable in the eye of law. 3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Surdarshana Bagda & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13586/2009. 4. While responding to the said arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s application for the reason that the area of land in question has been shown as facility area in the layout plan, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be regularized for residential purposes. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order was passed by the Empowered Committee while taking into consideration the location of the plot in question as well as prevailing laws and therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order was passed by the Empowered Committee while taking into consideration the location of the plot in question as well as prevailing laws and therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it is found that the earlier rejection order dated 01.03.2005 was passed on the same ground that the plot in question forms part of the facility area. However, the said reason was declared to be invalid by the JDA Appellate Tribunal. Since the area in question was later on transferred to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, the application for reconsideration after remand has been rejected on the same ground. Merely because the area in question has been transferred from the jurisdiction of JDA, Jaipur to Jaipur Municipal Corporation, the respondent - Corporation cannot be permitted to take a different view contrary to the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal. The respondent - Corporation has also lost sight of an important aspect of the matter that the seven out of the eight plots in the so-called facility area have already been regularized in favour of the respective allottees for residential purpose and therefore, denial of the same treatment to the petitioner, is not justified. 6.1 Although, it is contended by the counsel for the respondent that plot in question has been shown to be facility area in the layout plan, however, the counsel for the respondent has not denied the fact that the land forming part of the facility area has never been put to use for the said purpose, rather, all the eight allottees have been using the said part of land for residential purpose from last so many decades. 6.2 The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner passed in the case of JDA Vs. Smt. Surdarshana (supra) also acquires relevance in the present case as the facts of that case are very much similar to the facts of the present case. The relevant part of the judgment passed in case of Surdarshana Bagda (supra) reads as under :- “8. Upon a perusal of the record, it is made abundantly clear that vide allotment letter dated 07.08.1990 (Annexure R-1/1), Plot No. 124-A admeasuring 488.85 sq. The relevant part of the judgment passed in case of Surdarshana Bagda (supra) reads as under :- “8. Upon a perusal of the record, it is made abundantly clear that vide allotment letter dated 07.08.1990 (Annexure R-1/1), Plot No. 124-A admeasuring 488.85 sq. yards was allotted by the Pathik Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in favour of respondent no.1, along with the corresponding site plan wherein dimensions of the said Plot No. 124-A as well as the neighboring Plot Nos. 124 and 124-B were specified, which are illusory plots. 9. Furthermore, upon an analysis of the allotment letter(Annexure R-1/1) read with the application submitted by the respondent no.1 for her registration with the petitioner - JDA i.e. Application No.19808 (Annexure R-1/2), it is analyzed that the aforesaid Samiti had submitted a list allottees to the petitioner wherein the name of respondent no.1 was reflected on Page No.119 at Serial No.115 along with the allotment letter as well as the site plan. It is also revealed from the perusal of the minutes of the BPC Meeting dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure R-1/3), wherein the issue of inclusion of the respondent no.1’s land in the facility area was discussed, that the Building Plan Committee had decided that it would be appropriate to exclude the plot of the respondent no.1 from the facility area. In the said meeting, it was also noted that the President and Secretary of the said Samiti had allotted several plots in the names of their relatives, whilst avoiding allotment of plots to the real allottees as enumerated in the list, such as the respondent no.1. 10. Thereafter, upon taking into consideration the aforesaid, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order20.05.2009, duly considered the minutes of the meeting dated 28.02.2002 as mentioned above whilst also considering and taking note of the size of the plot in question, which could not be used and / or developed as a ‘park’. Moreover, it was also noted that no horticultural activities, to develop the said plot of land as a ‘park’ had been initiated therein. Rather, a simple boundary wall had been constructed surrounding the said plot. Thus, taking note of the aforesaid facts, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order. 11. Moreover, it was also noted that no horticultural activities, to develop the said plot of land as a ‘park’ had been initiated therein. Rather, a simple boundary wall had been constructed surrounding the said plot. Thus, taking note of the aforesaid facts, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order. 11. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-JDA in the judgments passed in Gulab Kothari (Supra) and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) is misplaced and misconceived for the following reasons:- a). That the plot in question i.e. Plot No. 124-A cannot be earmarked as a ‘park’ as it’s dimensions do not meet out the spacial specifications required therewith for the same to be categorized as a ‘park’. b). That the name of respondent no.1 is specifically included in the list of allottees at Serial No.115. c). That the size of the said plot in question is more akin to that of a residential space, than a park. d). That ever since the approval of the said scheme by the JDA, the latter has never undertaken any horticultural activities for the development of the said plot as a ‘park’. Accordingly, the judgments of Gulab Kothari (supra) and Bhanwar Singh (supra) are applicable only on those plots of land which are earmarked and specified for common facility are as with open space and not the plot involved herein, which is more akin to a residential plot, than a ‘park’. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at the only logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the Tribunal. The order impugned does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. For the reasons stated above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the Tribunal. The order impugned does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. For the reasons stated above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petitioner-JDA is directed to allot the said Plot No.124A to the respondent no.1,within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 6.3 Similarly, in the present case, when majority of part of land of facility area has already been leased for residential purpose to other allottees / purchasers and when the petitioner’s family, is residing in the residential house so constructed thereupon since the date of purchase of the said plot in the year 1986, the denial to issue lease deed of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner cannot be permitted. 7. In this view of matter, the present writ petition deserves acceptance and therefore, same is allowed. The respondent – Jaipur Municipal Corporation is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of lease deed of the plot in question also keeping in mind the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Surdarshana Bagda (supra). It is made clear that the reason that the petitioner’s plot falls within the facility area, has already been declared to be invalid by the JDA Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 15.06.2006 and the same is binding upon the Jaipur Municipal Corporation also. Therefore, said reason shall not be taken into account while deciding the petitioner’s application. The entire exercise upon the petitioner’s application for issuance of lease deed shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.