Dismissed

Panchu Lal Paharia and Anr. v. Rajneesh Gupta and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2022CW/4264/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Jaipur Development Authority's order to modify a lease deed. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the JDA lacked statutory power to cancel or amend registered lease deeds without a civil court suit, holding that such jurisdiction lies solely with civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed and the impugned order of the Tribunal was upheld.

Panchu Lal Paharia and Anr. Vs Rajneesh Gupta and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4264/2011

¶3

Panchu Lal Paharia S/o Shri Mohan Lal Paharia, aged about 63 years, R/o 46-A, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶4

Smt. Nirmala Paharia W/o Shri Panchu lal Paharia, aged about 60 years, R/o 46-A, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajneesh Gupta S/o Shri B.K. Gupta, R/o 1993, Moriza Mension, Ram Lalaji Ka Rasta, Johari Bajar, Jaipur.

¶8

–---Respondent

¶9

Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, JDA, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

Jaipur Development Authority through Its Secretary, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

Dy. Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8366/2012

¶15

Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.

¶17

–--Petitioners/Respondents No. 1 and 2

¶18

Versus

¶19

The Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶20

–---Proforma-Non-Petitioner

¶21

Rajnish Gupta S/o Shri B.K. Gupta, 1993, Morija Mansion, Ramlalla Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

¶22

–---Non-Petitioners/Appellant

¶23

(2 of 11)

¶24

[CW-4264/2011]

¶25

Panchu Lal Pahadiya S/o Shri Mohanlal Pahadiya, R/o 46-A, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶26

Smt. Nirmala W/o Shri Panchu Lal Pahadiya, R/o 46-A, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur.

¶27

–---Non-Petitioners/Respondents No. 3 & 4

¶28

For Petitioner(s) :	Mr.Sudhanshu Kasliwal, Sr.Adv. with
	Ms.Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv. &
	Mr.Krishna Verma, Adv.
	Mr.Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with
	Mr.Devansh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :	Mr.Manoj Sharma, Adv.

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶30

12/09/2022

¶31

The issue involved in both the writ petitions is common and as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by the present common order.

¶32

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2011 has been filed by the petitioner-Pachulal Pahadiya challenging the order/judgment dated 01.03.2011, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.103/2010 and prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal filed by the respondent No.2-Rajneesh Gupta before the Jaipur Development Appellate Authority.

¶33

The petitioner-JDA has filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8366/2012 to set aside the judgment dated 01.03.2011, passed by the Tribunal and with the further prayer to dismiss the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 – Rajneesh Gupta.

¶34

The Tribunal has decided two appeals by a common order i.e. Appeal No.103/2010 and Appeal No.87/2010, filed by the private respondent.

¶35

(3 of 11) [CW-4264/2011]

¶36

The private respondent filed appeal No.87/2010 against the notice dated 08.04.2010 issued by the JDA and filed appeal No.103/2010 challenging the report of Second Committee dated 16.02.2010 and order/site plan dated 14.05.2010.

¶37

The facts, in the nutshell as pleaded before the Tribunal & High Court, are that on 22.11.1981 one plot bearing No.K-42 in Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur was originally allotted by Kisan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Housing Society) in favour of Rajen Jindal in Scheme No.5, measuring 50x75 yards i.e. 416.66 Sq. Yards.

¶38

The Housing Society had submitted a list of members, in which the said plot was shown at Serial No.42. The JDA issued a lease deed/Patta on 30.09.2003 and the lease deed issued by the JDA was registered in the office of Registrar, Jaipur-I on 10.03.2004. The respondent No.1 purchased the aforesaid plot from Smt. Rajen Jindal through registered sale deed and possession was handed over to him on 28.08.2006.

¶39

The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-IV, JDA issued order of transfer of Patta/lease deed on 16.11.2009 in favour of the respondent No.1 showing the plot size as 50 yards x 75 yards.

¶40

The petitioners - Panchu Lal Pahadiya and Smt. Nirmala Pahadiya in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2011 purchased one plot measuring 469.52 Sq. Mtrs. along-with constructed boundary walls by way of registered sale deed from one Ajit Kumar. Vijay Pal Singh and Ajit Kumar were sons of Kumbha Ram Arya and were recorded Khatedar of agricultural land admeasuring 27 Bigha 17 Biswa, in Village Durgapura and Ramjipura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶41

(4 of 11)

¶42

[CW-4264/2011]

¶43

An agreement dated 03.01.1972 was executed by these two persons and they sold the land to Kisan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. measuring 23 Bigha and 7 Biswa out of total land of 27 Bigha and 17 Biswa.

¶44

Shri Vijay Pal Singh sold his half share vide sale deed dated 20.04.1972 and Ajit Kumar sold his share vide sale deed dated 07.08.1972 to the Housing Society and total 4 Bigha and 10 Biswa remained with the Khatedars.

¶45

The above-named two petitioners applied with the JDA for conversion of land and issuance of Patta on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 26.12.1998 purchased from Ajit Kumar and they claimed to be in actual physical possession.

¶46

The Deputy Registrar Commissioner, Zone-IV, had written a letter to the petitioners informing them that JDA had adopted due process of law and proceedings of Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 were done in favour of the Society and Pattas were issued in accordance with the approved plan on the basis of possession of the plot. It was also mentioned that detailed enquiry was conducted by High Power Committee and the land purchased by the petitioner-Panchu Lal Pahadiya, through registered sale deed, from erstwhile Khatedars out of Khasra Nos.205, 206 and 207, was part of the land, already sold by Khatedars to the Society.

¶47

The petitioners submitted a detailed representation against the letter dated 18.12.2009 on 30.12.2009. The JDA on the basis of representation of the petitioners constituted a new Committee and a report dated 16.02.2010 was prepared and the Authorities came to the conclusion that land sold by Ajit Singh ad-measuring

¶48

(5 of 11)

¶49

[CW-4264/2011]

¶50

469.52 Sq. Mtrs. was not part of the land sold to the Society and Patta in respect of Plot No.K-42 in favour of Smt. Rajen Jindal was issued without physical verification.

¶51

The JDA-Authorities on the basis of Second Committee Report issued notices to the respondent No.1 on 08.04.2010 and by order dated 14.05.2010, the lease deed issued in favour of the respondent No.1, was ordered to be modified and only land admeasuring 158.33 Sq. Yard, was available for the respondent No.1.

¶52

The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties, while deciding the appeals filed by the respondent No.1 framed issue, as whether the JDA Authorities could have amended or cancelled, validly issued lease deed in favour of a person at there own level without hearing the party concerned.

¶53

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 had purchased the plot in question and lease deed was executed and on a complaint being filed, one Committee was constituted and no illegality was found in respect of title of the plot in favour of the respondent No.1. The Tribunal has found that the JDAAuthorities constituted a Second Committee and without hearing the respondent No.1, the said Committee prepared the report and on that basis, the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 was issued.

¶54

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that if any registered lease deed or registry of a plot has been done, then the same cannot be cancelled or amended by the JDA Authorities and such power is only available to the Civil Court and the JDAAuthorities at their own, cannot cancel the lease deed.

¶55

(6 of 11)

¶56

[CW-4264/2011]

¶57

The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that even the issue of possession of plot in question not being with the respondent No.1 was subject-matter of dispute before the Civil Court in the suit and as such the JDA-Authorities could not have cancelled or modified the lease deed only on the basis of possession, not being with the respondent No.1.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised following submissions before this Court:-

¶59

The Tribunal has seriously erred in not considering the Second Committee Report prepared by the JDA and wrongly relied only on First Report. 2. The Tribunal only on the basis of First Report wrongly concluded that the erstwhile owner of the land, sold the land twice i.e. to the Society as well as to the petitioners. 3. The finding of the First Report was prima-facie wrong as the two separate plots admeasuring 469.52 Sq. Mtrs. and 561.57 Sq. Mtrs. were sold to the petitioners Panchu Lal Pahadiya and Nirmala Pahadiya, whereas in fact only one Plot admeasuring 469.52 Sq. Mtrs. was sold to both of them by two separate sale deeds, half undivided share to each of them.

¶60

The Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that there was cancellation of Patta but in fact there was only a modification of lease deed/Patta and as such the JDA-Authorites were within their power to do so. 5. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the person (employee of JDA) - Heera Lal who issued lease deed in respect of Plot No.K42, did not Act legally and even Lokayukta had asked for taking action against the said person.

¶61

(7 of 11) [CW-4264/2011]

¶62

The petitioners are in possession of the land from 16.12.1998 and even no suit for declaration and possession has been filed against the petitioners and limitation period has also expired long back.

¶63

On the contrary learned counsel Mr. Manoj Sharma appearing for the respondent submitted that finding of the JDA-Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the findings do not suffer from any perversity.

¶64

Learned counsel submitted that the JDA had no Authority to revise/cancel the registered lease deed and registered document can only be cancelled by the Civil Court.

¶65

The appointment of Second Committee and its report was without hearing to the petitioner. The report relating to not having possession of the plot in question was also wrongly formed by the JDA-Authorities, as the JDA itself in the Civil Court, in suit for injunction had stated that possession of the property was with the respondent No.1.

¶66

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had never challenged the report of the First Committee and they have based their claim on the alleged sale deed dated 26.12.1998, whereas the land in question was already sold to the Society and the Society had issued Pattas of the Plots to its members and lease deeds were issued after completing the proceedings of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956.

¶67

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

¶68

Poonam Chand Kasliwal Vs. Jaipur Development

¶69

Authority and Ors. reported in RLR 1998 (2) Page 204 ;

¶70

(8 of 11)

¶71

[CW-4264/2011]

¶72

M/s.Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. reported in RLR 2008 (3) Page 145 ;

¶73

Sunil Panna Lal Banthia & Ors. Vs. C & I Dev. Corpn. of Maharastra Ltd. & Ors. reported in JT 2007 (4) SC 271 ; 4. Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs.Hasan Raza Khan and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 All 52 (FB) .

¶74

Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3150/2011 (Mahendra Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 11.05.2012 and further in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1248/2011 (Deep Darshan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti “Sopan” Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 29.02.2016.

¶75

The operative portion of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deep Darshan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

¶76

“It is well settled that registered sale/lease deeds contractual in nature cannot be cancelled by a party thereto. Only a suit for declaration and cancellation of such lease deed is the remedy. The Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer has filed such a suit for cancellation of the aforesaid lease deed dated 20.08.2009, 04.11.2009 and 03.06.2010, as stated by AAG, Mr. G.S. Gill. In the state of law, I am inclined to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2011 (Annexure-23) passed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer. It is accordingly set-aside. It is however made clear that the quashing and setting aside of the order dated22.01.2011 is not a reflection of the merits of the petitioner Samitis' case. The jurisdictional civil

¶77

(9 of 11)

¶78

[CW-4264/2011]

¶79

court shall decide the suit before it uninfluenced by this order in accordance with the pleadings and the evidence led thereon by the parties to the civil suit. The suit be decided within 12 months, and if necessary on the basis of day to day hearing as the suit filed would pertain to a matter of great importance involving public land. All the petitions stand allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in each file.”

¶80

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶81

This Court has to consider validity of order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the JDA Tribunal, as whether such order suffers from any legal infirmity.

¶82

This Court finds that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that a lease deed, which was executed in favour of the respondent No.1, could not have been modified or cancelled by reducing the area as no such power is available with the JDA-Authorities and it is not provided under the JDA Act that lease deed/Patta issued by the JDA-Authorities, can be revoked/cancelled by them.

¶83

This Court finds that power of revocation of allotment or cancellation of lease deed has only been inserted in Chapter VIII of the JDA Act, 1982 by way of Amendment Notification dated 15.04.2021 and as such Section 54(D) has been inserted.

¶84

This Court finds that at the relevant time, when the JDA has issued the impugned order dated 14.05.2010, no such power was available with the Authorities and as such the action of the JDAAuthorities, cannot be approved.

¶85

This Court further finds that the power of cancellation of lease deed can only be exercised by the Competent Civil Court, as

¶86

(10 of 11)

¶87

[CW-4264/2011]

¶88

has been held by this Court in the case of M/s. Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (supra).

¶89

This Court further finds that the Tribunal has further rightly come to the conclusion that the JDA-Authorities cannot appoint successive committees and even if such committees are appointed, then at least prior notice is also required to be given to the person concerned before any decision is taken affecting rights of such person, in whose favour lease deed has already been issued.

¶90

This Court finds that in the present case admittedly the Second Committee was constituted on the basis of representation given by the petitioners and the report of the Committee was prepared and later on decision was taken to modify/reduce the area of the respondent No.1 in respect of a lease deed which was duly executed in his favour.

¶91

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the JDA-Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on First Report and the First Report was prima-facie wrong, suffice it to say by this Court that the respondent No.1 was having validly executed lease deed in his favour and appointment of Second or Successive Committee could not have defeated, his right to own the plot in question.

¶92

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the JDA-Authorities were within their domain to modify the lease deed and in fact they had not cancelled the lease deed of the petitioners in entirety, suffice it to say by this Court that if the Authorities had made up their mind and reduced the area of the respondent No.1 by making him entitled only for 158.33 Sq. Mtrs., the same necessarily resulted into modification and altering the size of the

¶93

(11 of 11)

¶94

[CW-4264/2011]

¶95

plot and as such the JDA-Authorities have no power to pass such an order.

¶96

This Court finds that no error has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the order and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶97

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶98

Monika

Panchu Lal Paharia and Anr. v. Rajneesh Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchu Lal Paharia and Anr. v. Rajneesh Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmaram Vs Bagaram and Ors.

All India Society for Education and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors.

Vikash Merutha S/O Ramnarayan Merutha Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Lakshman Vs State of Rajasthan

Preeti Bala Dhanetwal Vs Riico

Bihari and Ors. Vs Gyarsi Devi and Ors.