Dismissed

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2025CW/1817/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice for illegal construction, holding that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court granted liberty to file an appeal within fifteen days and stayed coercive action for four months.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed with liberty to file appeal before Appellate Tribunal, JDA within 15 days; stay of coercive action for 4 months.

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30781]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1817/2025

¶4

Ankur Mathur Son Of Late Shri Kamal Mathur, Resident Of 432, Mahavir Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶5

Smt. Rajesh Mathur Wife Of Late Shri Kamal Mathur, Resident Of 432, Mahavir Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Jaipur Development Authority, Through The Secretary, Near Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

The Dy. Commissioner, Zone 4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

The Enforcement Officer, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Srivastava Mr. Pradeep Mathur

¶14

For Respondent(s) :

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

08/08/2025

¶18

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2- Jaipur Development Authority under Section 32 (1) and (6) as well as Section 33 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act of 1982').

¶19

By way of issuing the impugned notice, the petitioners have been called upon to submit their response wherein it has been

[2025:RJ-JP:30781]

[CW-1817/2025]

(2 of 3)

alleged that the petitioners are raising illegal construction in the set back area and in violation of the Section 31(2) of the Act of 1982.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no fresh construction in the set back area is raised by the petitioners and the construction of the house was done more than ten years ago. Counsel submits that so far as the construction of pillars are concerned, no permission is required to the plot size of 227 sq. yard, even then the application seeking permission of construction along with the map has been approved by the authorities. Counsel submits that even then the notice under Section 32 of the Act of 1982 has been issued in an illegal manner without there being any cause of action to issue the same.

¶25

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, any order/notice issued by the JDA is appellable under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982. The petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy to approach the Appellate Tribunal, JDA by way of filing an appeal.

¶26

It is settled proposition of law that whenever alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. 7. On this count alone, the instant petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority by way of filing an appeal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982 before the Appellate Tribunal, JDA. In case, such appeal is submitted by the petitioners before the Appellate

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:30781]

[CW-1817/2025]

Authority within a period of fifteen days from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the same within a

¶31

period of three months thereafter.

¶32

For a period of four months, no coercive action shall be taken

¶33

by the respondent-authority against the petitioners.

¶34

Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶36

Ashu/116

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

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

Girraj Ghatiwala HUF Vs Rajesh Bhargav Son of Late Shree Rishinath Ji Bhargav

Chhote Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Roshan Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nishant Bareth Son of Shri Rajeev Bareth Vs University of Rajasthan

Jasmeet Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh Vs the Station House Officer

M/S Rajdeep Biotech Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Chand Son of Late Shri Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan