Allowed

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. v. J D a and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 May 2023CW/5260/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged Board of Revenue's orders setting aside land conversion orders. Court held respondent No.3, a stranger with no vested right, was not an 'aggrieved person' to challenge conversion. Board's findings were perverse. Writ petitions allowed, restoring original conversion orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 05.02.2018 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer quashed; orders dated 25.10.2017 of Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 of Authoriz

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009409]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5258/2018

¶4

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur (Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur).

¶5

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur (Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur).

¶6

M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP No. SSC-6162, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5259/2018

¶15

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶16

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶17

M/s. Swift Buildcreation, LLP No. SSC- 6112, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia

----Petitioners

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

(2 of 29)

Versus

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶24

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶25

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5260/2018

¶28

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶29

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶30

M/s. Goodwill Buildmart, LLP No. SSC-6158, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

¶31

----Petitioners

¶32

Versus

¶33

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶34

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶35

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(3 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5262/2018

¶41

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶42

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶43

M/s. Happy Buildmart, LLP No. SSC-6123, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

¶44

----Petitioners

¶45

Versus

¶46

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Uit Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

¶47

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶48

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶49

----Respondents

¶50

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/2018

¶51

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶52

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶53

M/s. Shree Nirmal Buildestate, LLP No. SSC-6138, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

----Petitioners

Versus

(4 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶60

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶61

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶62

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶63

----Respondents

¶64

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5270/2018

¶65

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶66

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶67

M/s. Harmony Buildev, LLP No. SSC- 6130, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

¶68

----Petitioners

¶69

Versus

¶70

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JlLNMarg, Jaipur.

¶71

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶72

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶73

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶74

----Respondents

¶75

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/2018

(5 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶80

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶81

M/s. Nirmal Buildev, LLP No. SSC- 6138, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia Correct Name Is M/s Shree Nirmal Buildev

¶82

----Petitioners

¶83

Versus

¶84

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶85

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶86

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶87

----Respondents

¶88

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5272/2018

¶89

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶90

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶91

M/s. Harmony Buildestate, LLP No. SSC- 6131, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

----Petitioners

Versus

(6 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Uit Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

¶98

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶99

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶100

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶101

----Respondents

¶102

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5273/2018

¶103

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶104

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶105

M/s. Harmony Buildev, LLP No. SSC- 6130, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia Correct Name Is M/s Harmony Buildspace

¶106

----Petitioners

¶107

Versus

¶108

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶109

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶110

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶111

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(7 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5274/2018

¶117

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶118

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶119

M/s Swift Buildmart, LLP No. SSC-6162, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia

¶120

----Petitioners

¶121

Versus

¶122

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶123

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶124

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶125

----Respondents

¶126

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5275/2018

¶127

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶128

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶129

M/s Nirmal Buildmart, LLP No. SSC-6149, Registered Address 2369 MSB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia Correct Name Is M/s Shree Nirmal Buildmart

----Petitioners

Versus

(8 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶136

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶137

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶138

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶139

----Respondents

¶140

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5276/2018

¶141

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶142

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶143

M/s. Happy Buildcreation, LLP No. SSC- 6093, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia

¶144

----Petitioners

¶145

Versus

¶146

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Uit Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

¶147

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶148

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶149

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶150

----Respondents

¶151

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5277/2018

¶152

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand

(9 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶157

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶158

M/s Ratnam Buildtech, LLP No. SSC-6159, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia

¶159

----Petitioners

¶160

Versus

¶161

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶162

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

¶163

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶164

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶165

----Respondents

¶166

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5278/2018

¶167

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶168

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶169

M/s. Happy Buildestate, LLP No. SSC-6127, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia.

¶170

----Petitioners

¶171

Versus

¶172

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶173

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur.

(10 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶178

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶179

----Respondents

¶180

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5279/2018

¶181

Smt. Nirmala Poonglia W/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶182

Shri Shirish Poonglia S/o Late Shri Shikhar Chand Poonglia, Resident Of C-21, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur Correct Address C-24, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur.

¶183

M/s. Swift Buildstate, LLP No. SSC- 6150, Registered Address 2369, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Smt. Nirmala Poonglia

¶184

----Petitioners

¶185

Versus

¶186

The Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, UIT Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶187

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil, Jaipur. 3. Shri Binder Pal Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Paras Ram Yadav, Resident Of S-87, Gurujumbeshwar Nagar-A, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶188

Shri Deep Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mali Lal Jain, Power Of Attorney Holder Of M/s. Sweet Dream Buildtech, LLP, Jaipur aged about 78 years, Resident Of N-109, Adinath Nagar, Parshwanath Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶189

----Respondents

¶190

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhandari Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, Mr. Vikrant Gurjar

¶191

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma-AGC

(11 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Mr. Amit Kuri for JDA Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi for respondent No.3 Mr. Sandeep Pathak for respondent No.4

¶196

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶197

Judgment / Order

¶198

Reserved on Pronounced on

¶199

::: April 04, 2023 ::: May 11,2023

¶200

Since all these writ petitions involve a similar / identical issue and therefore, all were tagged, heard and decided by the common order.

¶201

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the separate orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, (for short ‘the Board of Revenue’) in the revision petitions filed by respondent No.3Binder Pal Singh Yadav, whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petitions and set aside the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Zone-7, JDA, Jaipur and also the orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer under section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’). The details of the orders under consideration in each writ petition are given in tabulation form as under:-

(12 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

SBCW P.No. (1)	Date numbe petitio the Reven Ajmer	of order and r of revision n, passed by Board of ue, Rajasthan, (2)	Date of ord number of passed by Divisional Commissione Jaipur (3)	er and appeal the r,	Date of Or the case passed b Authorized Zone-7, JDA (4)	der and number, y the Officer, , Jaipur
5258/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6685/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.126/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.9	Case
5259/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6694/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.113/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.14	Case
5260/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6692/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.125/2017	Appeal	28.07.2016, No.06	Case
5262/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6693/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.114/2017	Appeal	03.08.2016, No.16	Case
5266/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6684/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.118/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.3	Case
5270/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6695/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.116/2017	Appeal	28.07.2016, No.13	Case
5271/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6678/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.120/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.4	Case
5272/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6676/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.117/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.8	Case
5273/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6686/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.119/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.7	Case
5274/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6691/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.123/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.15	Case
5275/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6683/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.121/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.12	Case
5276/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6690/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.127/2017	Appeal	28.07.2016, No.10	Case
5277/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6679/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.124/2017	Appeal	28.07.2016, No.02	Case
5278/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6687/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.115/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.11	Case
5279/2018	05.02. /LR/ Jaipur	2018, Revision 6677/ 2017/	25.10.2017, No.122/2017	Appeal	02.08.2016, No.5	Case

(13 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Since all the writ petitions are based on similar and to some extent identical facts and thus for brevity the facts of CWP No.5258/2018 are being mentioned here for consideration.

¶210

The facts borne out from the pleadings are that land bearing Khasra No.179 measuring 17 bigha and 5 biswa situated in Beedkhatipura, Jaipur, was recorded in the name of Shikar Chand Poonglia and Rikhab Chand Poonglia. A partition took place amongst the legal representatives of aforesaid khatedars on 24.07.2013 whereby Khasra No.179/1 measuring 8 bigha and 13 biswa was the share of Nirmala Poonglia and Shrish Poonglia, who are legal representatives of Shikar Chand Poonglia and Khasra No.179/2 measuring 8 bigha and 12 biswa was the share of Ratan Kumar Poonglia and Sanjay Poonglia, who are legal representatives of Rikhab Chand Poonglia. Out of the land of Khasra No.179/1, one of the petitioner, purchased a plot measuring 11 biswas from Nirmala Poonglia and Shrish Poonglia from Khasra No.179/1 vide registered sale deed dated 06.02.2015 which was renumbered as Khasra No.294/179 and mutation to that effect was also opened in the revenue record.

¶211

An application was moved by one of the petitioner under section 90A of the Act of 1956 for conversion of the land from agriculture purpose to residential use along-with the site-plan and also requested for a single patta.

(14 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

On the application of the petitioner for conversion, the respondents issued public notice on 08.07.2016 for inviting objections under section 90A of the Act of 1956 which was published in the daily newspapers on 09.07.2016 (Dainik Bhaskar) and 10.07.2016 (Samachar Jagat). As per the public notice, the objections were to be submitted and received taken within 30 days but no objection was received by the JDA within the statutory period of 30 days from any person.

¶216

After receiving the report from the Teshildar and the approval report from the local authority in regard to the request for conversion of the land from agriculture purpose to the residential use and on consideration of the complete material, the Authorized Officer, Zone-7, JDA, Jaipur, vide its separate orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 (details given in table in para 2 above) passed the order of conversion from agriculture purpose to residential use. The land was also surrendered to the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the JDA’) for issuance of a single patta and thereafter, the land was recorded in the name of the JDA.

¶217

Binderpal Singh Yadav filed separate appeals (details in table of para 2 above) before the Court of the District Collector, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, against the separate orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and

(15 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer in regard to conversion of the land in question from agriculture purpose to residential use on the ground that the Khasra No.179/1 measuring 8 bigha and 13 biswa was malafidely divided into 17 parts and have been sold to 15 different partnership firms and also on the ground that the respondents are bound to leave 42% of the land for facility area and only conversion of 58% of the land could have been allowed but vide orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016, the complete land has been ordered to be converted for residential use. The aforesaid appeals were later on transferred to Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, for consideration.

¶222

Parallel to the common appeals filed before the District Collector, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, against the orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016, the appellant/respondent No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav also filed a Reference before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) with the prayer that no construction approval be given to the plotholders until they leave 42% area for public facility. It has also come on the record that the reference filed by respondent No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav before the Appellate Tribunal was withdrawn.

(16 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

The petitioners filed detailed reply separately to the memo of appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 Binderpal Singh Yadav with the preliminary objections that he (respondent No.3) has no locus standi to file the appeal and such an appeal is not maintainable as he cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ and he is a stranger.

¶227

The appeals filed before the District Collector, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, were transferred to the Court of the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, for adjudication.

¶228

The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, vide its separate orders dated 25.10.2017 dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent/appellant No.3- Binder Pal Singh Yadav after accepting the preliminary objections filed by one of the petitioner by way of an application holding that the respondent/ appellant No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav is not having any locus standi to file the same.

¶229

Against the orders dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur separately, dismissing the appeals of Binderpal Singh Yadav, he (Binderpal Singh Yadav), preferred revision petitions separately before the Board of Revenue under section 84 of the Act of 1956 and prayed to quash and set aside the common order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and further the orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer, in regard to

(17 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

conversion of land under section 90A of the Act of 1956. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision petitions vide its separate orders dated 05.02.2018 in each revision and set aside the orders dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as the order dated 02.08.2016, 3.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer, JDA, Jaipur, under section 90A of the act of 1956 for conversion of the land in question.

¶234

Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the judgments dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue are absolutely arbitrary as the Board of Revenue has merely stated that the conversion order passed under Section 90A of the Act of 1956 is in non-compliance of the Notification dated 28.02.2008 and also on the ground that if the facility will be reduced, the same shall result in harm to the environment and the people living nearby. The grounds of allowing the revision petitions are totally perverse, contrary to the record and based on surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that the conversion of the land in question under section 90A of the Act of 1956 was done by the Authorized Officer after following the due process of law. He further submitted that the Notification dated 28.02.2008 is not applicable in the present matter as the Notification dated 28.02.2008 is applicable to the Township Policy and is not applicable over the land. He further submitted that the

(18 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

ground of leaving 42% of land for facility area is there where the Township is to be developed. He further submitted that the appellant /respondent No.3 during the pendency of the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, while submitting reply to the application dated 04.10.2017 has specifically stated that he has no objection to the extent of conversion of land bearing Khasra No.179/1 measuring 8 Bigha 13 Biswa. It is also submitted that appellant/ respondent No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav is a stranger and he cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ by the order of conversion of land. He further submitted that the bone contention of the appellant /respondent No.3 is premature because at this stage only the order of conversion has been passed and the provision of leaving 42% area for public facility is to be seen by the JDA when the map for raising construction is being approved. One more submission was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that even though section 9 of the Act of 1956 cannot be applied where there is a specific provision to challenge the order passed by the authorities under the Act of 1956, still the Board of Revenue has set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and the Authorized Officer with the help of section 9 of the Act of 1956.

¶239

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir

(19 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Ahmed & Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 in regard to the argument that that the appellant/respondent No.3 Binderpal Singh Yadav, who is a stranger, cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ by the order of conversion.

¶244

Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC, counsel appearing for the respondent State submitted that any aggrieved person can challenge the order of conversion of land, though he does not dispute the conversion of land in question on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar but submitted that while converting the land the basic requirement is that 30 to 40 percent land for facility area is to be parted out but in the present case it has not been done so.

¶245

Mr. Amit Kuri, counsel appearing for the respondent- JDA submitted that the conversion of land has been made by the Authorized Officer appointed by the State Government. He further submitted that the Authorized Officer acts on behalf of the State and the presumption to the order/s passed by the authorities on the basis of the reports from the Subordinate and concerned Offices is always in favour of the order/s as same are in accordance with law until and unless anything contrary is proved. He further submitted that vide orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 the land in question has been ordered to be converted from agriculture use to residential purpose. As regards the objection of not leaving 42% land for the public

(20 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

facility is concerned, same is premature because the issue of facility area will be considered by the JDA while approving the plans for construction. He also submitted that the appellant /respondent No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav is not an ‘aggrieved person’. He further submitted that the proceedings under section 90A of the Act of 1956 are not judicial matters and, therefore, the revision petition under section 84 of the Act of 1956 is not maintainable. He referred the provisions contained in Section 90A of the Act of 1956 and the Schedule-I appended thereto.

¶250

Mr. Prakhar Gupta and Mr. Sandeep Pathak, counsels appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that even though the Divisional Commissioner has held that appellant/ respondent No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav is not an aggrieved person, in such circumstances also the Board of Revenue, can take suo moto cognizance by calling the record from the subordinate authorities and may interfere in the same, if found some perversity and illegality. He further submitted that the scope of public notice issued for inviting objections also gives right to a person from the public to file an appeal in case aggrieved by the order of conversion.

¶251

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 is resident of the colony nearby to the land in question and he is an ‘aggrieved person’ by the order of conversion because

(21 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

any kind of construction over the land in question as a result of the conversion will certainly affect his rights. He further submitted that while issuing the order for conversion, the requirement of 42% area for public facility has not been taken care of.

¶256

Considered the rival submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record available with the writ petitions.

¶257

The respondent/ appellant No.3 Binder Pal Singh filed appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer, JDA in regard to the conversion of the land in question from agricultural purpose to the residential use.

¶258

The petitioners submitted a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the appeals stating that respondent /appellant No.3 Binderpal Singh Yadav has no locus standi to file appeals because he cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ as he has no vested interest in the land in question. It was also submitted that the orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 under section 90A of the Act of 1956 are in no manner adversely affect any of the rights of the respondent /appellant No.3 Binderpal Singh Yadav, and therefore, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person for filing an appeal. The Divisional Commissioner, after considering the preliminary objections submitted by the

(22 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

petitioners dismissed the appeals of the respondent/appellant No.3 Binderpal Singh Yadav holding that he has no locus standi. The Board of Revenue while allowing the revision petitions observed that under section 90(1)(a) of the Act of 1956, the orders are required to be passed after inviting objections from the public and, therefore, the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, dismissing the appeals of the respondent /appellant are not justified.

¶263

The respondent/ appellant No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav while submitting the reply to the application dated 04.10.2017 about the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appeals has stated that he has no grievance as regards conversion of the land bearing Khasra No.179/1 measuring 8 Bigha and 13 biswa. While deciding the issue whether a person is an aggrieved person or not, it is to be taken into consideration that how and in what manner the person claiming to be an aggrieved person is having interest in the land in question as regards the order of conversion from agriculture use to the residential purpose. As regards the conversion proceedings are concerned, only a person who is having a vested right in the land in question, can raise an issue and not a stranger. If the strangers are allowed to intervene in the conversion proceedings then probably in each and every case of conversion somebody will

(23 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

interfere and the whole proceedings will be hampered which may lead to chaos.

¶268

In paragraph No.13 of the judgment in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) , it has been observed that the scope and meaning of aggrieved person depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged and some general tests have to be devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible so as to have the locus standi or ‘standing’.

¶269

The respondent/ appellant No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav filed appeals before the District Collector which were lateron transferred to the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, against the orders passed by the Authorized Officer under section 90A of the Act of 1956 for conversion of land use of agriculture land for non agriculture purposes. Sub-section 9 of section 90A of the Act of 1956 provides for an appeal to any person against an order of an officer or authority issuing order of conversion. The petitioners have no vested or legal right over the land in question. In reply to the application submitted by the petitioners’ side before the Appellate Authority in respect to the maintainability of the appeal, the petitioners have specifically submitted that they have no grievance in regard to the conversion of land bearing Khasra No. 179/1 measuring 8 Bigha 13 Biswa. The petitioners’ basic grievance is that while issuing the order of conversion, 42%

(24 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

area of the converted land has not been left for facilities. The petitioners have no vested or legal right over the land in question, they cannot be said to be ‘aggrieved persons’ to the extent of order of conversion of agriculture land for residential use.

¶274

Respondent/appellant No.3 Binderpal Singh Yadav, who is resident of the colony nearby to the land in question in the facts and circumstances of the present case to the effect of order of conversion of land, cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ because he has no no vested right over the land in question in any manner and has also submitted in the reply to the application before the Appellate Authority that he has no objection in conversion of the land in question. Counsel appearing for the respondent/ appellant submitted that if the construction over the land in question is raised without leaving 42% facility area as required under the law, the right of the petitioners of an open air will be adversely affected and the pollution will also increase in their colony. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the claim of the respondent/ appellant is premature on the ground that he has only sought conversion of land and the construction map is still to be placed before the JDA for approval and the objections of the petitioners in regard to leaving facility area are to be considered by the JDA while approving the construction plan and the said stage has yet to

(25 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

come. Counsel appearing for the respondent- JDA also in clear words has stated that they will ensure the requirements as per the law for leaving facility area while approving the plans for construction submitted by the petitioners.

¶279

In view of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondent- JDA and the grievance of the petitioners, the respondent/appellant No.3 cannot be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ at the stage of order of conversion of land and therefore the findings of the Board of Revenue that the appellant/ respondent has locus standi to file an appeal against the order of conversion is wholly perverse and illegal.

¶280

The Board of Revenue while allowing the revision petitions has observed that the orders of conversion of land are gross violation of the Notification dated 28.02.2008.

¶281

Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Notification dated 28.02.2008 is not applicable in the case of conversion of the land of the petitioners.

¶282

The learned Board of Revenue though has observed that the conversion of land in question has been made in gross violation of the Notification dated 28.02.2008 but did not observe that how the orders of conversion are in violation of the aforesaid Notification. Whereas on the other hand the counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

(26 of 29)

Notification dated 28.02.2008 was issued in reference to the proceedings under section 90B of the Act of 1956 which automatically looses its significance on deletion of the aforesaid provision. It was also submitted by the counsels appearing for the petitioners that the Notification dated 28.02.2008 is in regard to the Township Policy and not over the private land. Counsels appearing for the petitioners further submitted that neither the petitioners nor the original khatedars ever desired to establish township over the land in question and the issue of leaving 40% of land for facility area applies on where a township is developed.

¶287

The arguments of the counsels appearing for the petitioners, as stated above, were not rebutted by the counsel appearing for the respondent /appellant No.3. The order of the Board of Revenue without making any observations or findings in regard to the applicability of the Notification dated 28.02.2008 in case of conversion of the land of the petitioners is not sustainable.

¶288

It has come on the record that the respondent/appellant No.3 on filing appeals against the order of conversion of conversion before the District Collector simultaneously preferred reference applications before the Appellate Authority, JDA, Jaipur, agitating the grievance in regard to leaving of 42% area for public facility. The provisions of law also speak that when any person is

(27 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the authority affecting his rights, may refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The basic grievance of the petitioners raised in the matter is that while issuing the order of conversion, 42% facility area has not been left out as required.

¶293

The requirement of leaving facility area comes at the stage while approving the plans for construction. In the present case vide order dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 by the Authorized Officer the only conversion of land has been made and the building and construction plans are yet to be placed before the JDA for approval and that will be the appropriate stage where the grievance raised by the petitioners is to be considered. Counsel appearing for the respondent JDA has already stated that they will ensure that the provisions and requirement of law will be followed while approving the building and constructions plans over the land in question. In case while approving the plans by the JDA, any provision of law is not followed regarding the requirement of facility area or the petitioners feel that their rights are being affected by the decision of the JDA Authorities, they have a remedy to approach the JDA Tribunal under section 83(8) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act. 27. In view of the discussion made above and the stage of conversion of land from agriculture use to residential purpose and the respondent/ appellant having no right in the

(28 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

land in question, cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by the order of conversion of land as no any right of the petitioners in any manner is adversely affected by the conversion of the land. Therefore, the findings of the Board of Revenue holding that the respondent/ appellant No.3 Binder Pal Singh Yadav is an aggrieved person as regards to the orders for conversion of land, is illegal, perverse and not justified. Therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶298

As a result, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in the revision petitions (bearing Nos. 6685/2017, 6694/2017, 6692/2017, 6693/2017, 6684/2017, 6695/2017, 6678/2017, 6676/2017, 6686/2017, 6691/2017, 6683/2017, 6690/2017, 6679/2017, 6687/2017 and 6677/2017) are quashed and set aside and the orders dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, in the appeals (bearing Nos. 126/2017, 113/2017, 125/2017, 114/2017, 118/2017, 116/2017, 120/2017, 117/2017, 119/2017, 123/2017, 121/2017, 127/2017, 124/2017, 115/2017 and 122/2017) and also the orders dated 02.08.2016, 03.08.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer, Zone-7, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, for conversion of land in question, are restored.

(29 of 29)

[2023/RJJP/009409]

[CW-5258/2018]

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in

¶303

connected petitions.

¶304

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶305

Sharma NK

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. v. J D a and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. v. J D a 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

Himanshu Agnihotri Son of Shri S.N. Agnihotri Vs M/S Saraswati Press

Mrs. Geetika Kavia W/O Mr. Girish Kavia Vs Abhimanyu Detha S/O Shri Arjun Dan Detha

Indra Vijay Singh Son of Late Lt. Col. Govind Singh , Vs Shree Krishna Vatika Homes (Llp)

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors.

M/S Globus Spirits Limited Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

M/S Vintage Distillers Limited Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited