Disposed

Anil Sethi v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2019CW/930/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of public interest writ petitions regarding road widening enclosures and commercial activity in a residential colony. The Court directed the Jaipur Development Authority to finalize road width decisions per the 2000 plan and issue rulings on commercial premises within two months based on updated building by-laws, while keeping all rights regarding involuntary land surrende

What did the court decide?

Directing the JDA to finalize road width directions and decide on commercial premises in residential areas within two months in accordance with building by-laws; keeping rights of involuntary land sur

Anil Sethi Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 930/2016

¶3

Anil Sethi S/o Late Shri R.l. Sethi, aged 58 years, R/o Plot No. 115, Kailashpuri, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

The Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Secretary.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-IV, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14261/2014

¶13

Sudhindra Kumar Singh Son Of Late Shri Vijayendra Pal Singh, B-119, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur.

¶17

The Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 9 Kailashpuri B-2 Bye-Pass, In Front Of Bank Of Baroda, Mansarovar Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.

¶18

Connected With

¶19

D.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.1649/2016

¶20

Anil Sethi S/o Late Shri R.l. Sethi, aged 58 years, R/o Plot No. 115, Kailashpuri, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

Shri O.p. Meena, Chief Secretary To The Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶24

Shri Mukesh Sharma, Principal Secretary To The

¶25

(2 of 6)

¶26

[CW-930/2016]

¶27

Govenment, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶28

Shri Vaibhav Galaria, Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶29

Shri Deena Nath Babbar, Deputy Commissioner, Zone 4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 5. Shri Ravi Jain, Commissioner of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶30

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Mudita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. HV Nandwana, Adv. Mr. SS Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Anand Sharma with Ms. Ritu Pathak, Adv. Mr. SS Sharma, Adv.

¶31

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Adv. Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv.

¶32

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶33

Order

¶34

19/08/2019

¶35

The present litigation instituted in public interest complains of a commercial activity to the extent of 43 buildings on a strip of land which falls within the JLN Marg to Tonk Road. The Court after initiating proceedings by issuing a notice, on 31.08.2016 notices as follows:-

¶36

“In compliance thereof the Jaipur Development Authority came into motion and proceedings against the individuals came to be initiated under the provisions of Jaipur Development Authority Act,1982.

¶37

Apart from other respondents, reply has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority and it is stated that the width of the road falling in Kailashpuri Scheme of Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society as shown in the sector plan originally was 80 ft., however, the width of 80 ft. was altered by the Building Planning Committee of JDA, while looking into the facts of the case and the BPCII (CPC) after applying its mind, while according approval of the Kailashpuri Scheme, decided the size of road in

¶38

(3 of 6)

¶39

[CW-930/2016]

¶40

question to be kept and maintained as 60 ft. wide and the map of the scheme was approved keeping the width of road as 60 ft.

¶41

Though there are objections raised by the petitioners but at this stage we would like to proceed on the basis of the width of the road as being indicated by the JDA in para-3 of their reply and that apart it is also stated that the notices were earlier issued to various occupiers u/Ss 32,33,34 & 72 of the Act,1982 for removal of illegal/unauthorized encroachments from the public land but because of the interim orders passed by the JDA tribunal has shown its inability to proceed further in the matter.

¶42

It is also stated that as many as 43 buildings where the commercial activities are being carried out in the residential approved colony and those buildings have been sealed by the JDA. Detailed reference of which has been made at page-74 of the reply & Annx.R4/1.

¶43

After we took notice of the reply filed by the respondent to which we have made a reference and before proceeding in the matter any further we were of the prima facie view that at this stage the width of the road at least be restored as per the approved plan of the JDA i.e. to 60 ft. subject to objections of the petitioners for widening of the road to 80 ft. in question. We were of the view that let the local residents/occupiers falling on/concerned may cooperate with the JDA at least for restoration of the width of road in question at least to the extent of 60 ft. as indicated in the order dt.30-8-2016 and posted the matter for today i.e. 31-8-2016.

¶44

We have also noticed that the local residents/ occupiers have filed their respective applications seeking permission of this Court for their impleadment as party to the proceeding, we are of the prima facie view that they deserves indulgence & to be heard in the matter as their rights prima facie are going to be affected and we grant indulgence to each of them to make their respective submissions obviously to proceed further in the matter.

¶45

The concerned Zonal Commissioner of JDA is present before the Court and in the pre-lunch session, counsel appearing for the respective applicants submitted that each of them has no objection far widening of the road to the extent of 60 ft. is concerned & Sh. Kamlakar Sharma Sr. Adv., assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma, in addition thereto, submitted that if widening of the road is carried out to the extent of 60 ft. by the JDA, they have no objection but it should be measured from center line of the existing road & may be 30ft. both sides and widening should not be as per the approved plan of the JDA, since if that is being given effect to it may be 20 ft. on one side & 10 ft. on the other side of the existing road and this according to him is discriminatory and except the client of

¶46

(4 of 6)

¶47

[CW-930/2016]

¶48

Mr. Sharma, all other applicants have given their consent & undertakings have been furnished for widening of the road in question upto 60 ft. as per the approved plan of the JDA.

¶49

At this stage we are not going to proceed on the question of widening of the road whether it is 20 ft. or 10 ft. on the either side and we make it clear that the JDA must proceed for widening of the road connecting from JLN Marg to Tonk Road strictly in terms of the approved plan dt.27-7-2000. It is brought to our notice that almost all the applicants have submitted their written undertaking to this Court on the issue of widening of the road to the extent of 60 ft. in terms of the approved plan dt.27-7-2000.

¶50

Taking note of their further submission that their running commercial activities have been sealed by the JDA, we consider it appropriate to observe that let such of the applicants who have furnished their undertaking to this Court on the issue in question, they may submit their self contained application along with relevant documents to the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority within two days. It is expected from the authority/authorised officer to give due attention and after providing personal hearing to each of the applicant, such applications may be decided in terms of the updated amended Building By-laws of JDA of 2010 and decision be communicated to each of them on or before 6-9-2016.

¶51

That apart, there is another set of applicants, who have approached to this Court with the grievance that they are also directly affected & submits that their premises have also been sealed because of their running commercial activities in the residential area and prayed that they may also be granted indulgence to furnish their application to the Commissioner, JDA along with undertaking to be examined as per the Building By-Laws2010.

¶52

Taking into consideration what is being urged by them, we consider it appropriate to observe that if such applications are filed before the competent authority that may also be considered after providing personal hearing to each of them as well and decision be taken in accordance with updated amended Building By-laws-2010 and be communicated to them by 6-9-2016.

¶53

Let the authority may make compliance of the order and place the report for perusal of the Court on the next date of hearing.”

¶54

Several non-parties applied to this Court; their applications for impleadment were accepted. Their contention is

¶55

(5 of 6)

¶56

[CW-930/2016]

¶57

that the so-called encroachments alleged by the petitioners are not really so and that they are occupiers of land, for which the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust (UIT the predecessor of the Jaipur Development Authority) had sanctioned the development of a colony styled as ‘ Kailashpuri ’ way back in 1979. It is submitted that due to the peculiarities of the road planning especially the proposal for its expansion which led to untenable traffic movement, the non-party respondents agreed to surrender some lands to the JDA for widening of the road. They contend that this widening did not however, mean that they give up their right to claim compensation.

¶58

The JDA in its counter affidavit as well as submissions before the Court states that road width was extended to 60 ft. in 2000 (on 27.07.2000). It is submitted by the JDA that a decision was taken to extend the road width to 80 ft. and that the respondents/non-parties voluntarily surrendered their lands. According to the JDA, since the surrender of land was voluntary without any condition and in fact with their approval and, therefore, there was no payment of any compensation.

¶59

Pursuant to the order of 31.08.2016, the JDA, Jaipur finalised the road width to 60 ft. as of now. No final decision to maintain the road width at 80 ft. as yet has been taken. At the same time, it is evident that the claim in the writ petition-which was premised upon encroachment of public lands, is not a claim that can be gone into as far as the non-party/respondent and other owners who occupied various strips of the lands are concerned. As regards the commercial use of buildings in residential areas, pursuant to this Court’s order, the premises were sealed and a direction was issued to take further steps in accordance with law.

¶60

In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion so as far as the question of use of private lands for road widening is concerned, now that a final decision has not yet been taken to increase the road width to 80 ft., and in view of the materials on record, it is open to the aggrieved parties (by reason of taking over of their lands or involuntary surrender) as is

¶61

(6 of 6)

¶62

[CW-930/2016]

¶63

contended by them, to approach the concerned Court and seek such remedies as are available in law. In such an event, all rights and contentions of both parties i.e. the owners/occupiers as well as the JDA are kept open. The duration for such litigation was pending consideration and interim orders were made shall not be taken into consideration if the question of limitation is urged. The concerned Court, therefore, shall decide the matter on its merits.

¶64

As far as the question of commercial use of buildings or premises in residential areas (listed as 43 in the order of 31.08.2016) is concerned, there can be no two opinions. The JDA should take a final decision in regard to these buildings, wherever seals have been permitted to be removed or wherever the parties sought conversion and pass final orders in each of these matters within the next two months in accordance with law. It is clarified that any order made shall be in accordance with the master plan and the zonal plans concerned and having regard to the specific land uses and other control norms applicable to the JDA.

¶65

Accordingly, these two writ petitions as well as contempt petition are disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶66

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶67

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶68

NAVAL KISHOR-JKP-2 to 4

Anil Sethi v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sethi v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shri Babu Lal Somani Vs the Ito

Suresh Agrawal S/O Late Shri Raghuveersharan Agrawal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

M/S Kei Industries Vs Union of India

Anil Sethi Vs Shri O P Meena and Ors.