Ramesh Atal Son of Shri Kaluram Vs Jaipur Development Authority (Jda)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2219/2026

¶4

Ramesh Atal Son Of Shri Kaluram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Regaron Ka Mohalla, Kaladera, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaipur Development Authority (Jda), Through Its Commissioner Vidhayak Marg, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

….respondent

¶9

Madan Lal S/o Anandi Lal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Gram Boytawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶10

Jagdish S/o Nathu, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Gram Boytawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶11

Smt. Meenakshi Lunawat W/o Late Shri Mukesh Choudhary, Resident Of Gram Boytawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶12

Chand Khan S/o Late Shri Gulab Khan, Resident Of Gram Boytawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents/Appellants

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Barala
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Udit Purohit,
	Mr. Surajbhan Choudhary
	for respondent No.2, 3 and 4

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶16

Order

¶17

05/02/2026

¶18

The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

[CW-2219/2026]

(2 of 7)

(hereinafter, ‘JDA Appellate Tribunal’) whereby the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was allowed and the cancellation order dated 18.12.2023 and notice dated 11.12.2023 were set aside.

¶23

The quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of the case at hand are that the original land situated in Loha Mandi Yojana, Gram Macheda, District Jaipur, bearing Khasra Nos. 651, 652, 666, 667/1224, 667/1228 belonging to the original khatedars Kalu Ram, Nanga, Ghisa Ram, and Kajod was acquired by the respondent No. 1, Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘JDA’) for developing the Loha Mandi Scheme. In lieu of the said acquisition, the original khatedars became entitled to receive 15 percent of the developed land as compensation. The original khatedars after acquisition of land executed a registered sale deed on 22.07.2021 in favour of the petitioner, Ramesh Atal. The petitioner then filed an application before the JDA claiming 15 percent developed land as compensation deriving claim from the sale deed dated 22.07.2021.

¶24

The respondent No. 5, Chand Khan, earlier obtained a lease deed dated 27.12.2012 executed by JDA for plots bearing Nos. 270 to 273 in Loha Mandi Scheme, allegedly making him entitled to receive 15 percent developed land of the acquired land of the original khatedars as compensation. However, a show cause notice dated 11.12.2023 was served upon the respondent no. 5 by the JDA calling upon him to show cause as to why the lease deed issued in his favour should not be cancelled on account of

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

[CW-2219/2026]

(3 of 7)

fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation. Pursuant to this, respondent no. 5 along with the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, persons who subsequently purchased the plots from him, filed an Appeal No. 843/2023 before the JDA Appellate Tribunal challenging the said show cause notice.

¶29

During the pendency of the said appeal, the learned Tribunal passed an interim order dated 18.12.2023 with the direction to maintain status quo and on the same day, under Section 54(D) of the JDA Act, JDA passed an order cancelling the lease deed issued in favour of the respondent No. 5. An amended appeal was then filed by the appellants-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on 04.07.2025 alleging disobedience by JDA of the learned Tribunal’s order.

¶30

In response to this, the petitioner filed his reply on 27.08.2025 informing the learned Tribunal about the criminal case registered against respondent No. 5 in which charge sheet has been filed and the trial is pending. The respondent No. 1, JDA, also filed its reply on 05.12.2025 stating that the Power of Attorney dated 29.04.2003 executed by the original khatedars in favour of respondent No. 5 was valid for three years, however, the lease deed was obtained by him six years after the expiry of such power of attorney. After considering these, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2026.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 5 had no authority to obtain a lease deed in 2012 on behalf of the original khatedars based on an expired Power of Attorney. It is contended that the

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

[CW-2219/2026]

(4 of 7)

respondent No. 5 forged the signature and thumb impression of the original khatedar, Ghisa Ram, and there exists serious irregularities in the stamp paper on which the Namitnama was prepared. This stamp paper was said to be originally issued in the names of persons other than the original khatedars and the same was allegedly fabricated and manipulated, demonstrating fraud and forgery.

¶36

The counsel further submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal did not consider the criminal case of fraud, forgery, fabrication of documents, and criminal misconduct registered by the petitioner against respondent No. 5 and also ignored the statement of the original khatedar, recorded at the time of investigation, regarding validity of the Power of Attorney.

¶37

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

¶38

In light of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and the material available on record, the question that arises for consideration is: ‘Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed when the land forming the subject matter of the sale deed was already under acquisition of the JDA?’

¶39

The respondent-appellant No.5 before the Tribunal has filed an appeal, assailing notice dated 11.12.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Zone-6 Jaipur Development Authority, as regards the cancellation of plot Nos.270-273 and 204. As per the facts on record, the notice dated 11.12.2023 was issued to respondent No.5, Chand Khan,

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

[CW-2219/2026]

(5 of 7)

requiring him to submit the material documents for seeking 15 percent developed plot in Loha Mandi Scheme qua the acquired land. He was asked to submit the material documents by 27.11.2012 and it was also specifically stated in the notice that in case he fails to submit the required document, the order for cancellation of lease deed may be issued.

¶44

In view of the notice dated 11.12.2023, the respondent-appellant No.5, Chand Khan, was having time upto 18.12.2023 for submitting the material documents and so also the lease deeds dated 27.11.2012 and 27.12.2012, but the JDA Authorities without waiting for a day, issued order dated 18.12.2023 for cancellation of the patta. As per the condition of the notice, the respondent-appellant No.5, Chand Khan, was required to submit document for lease deed within seven days, which means that he has to submit the documents within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶45

In the present case, the order of cancellation of lease deed has been passed on 18.12.2023 i.e. exact seven days from the date of issuance of notice. In a normal condition, service of notice upon the concerned persons takes minimum two to three days and, therefore, seven days period for submitting the material documents must have been counted from the date it is served or after two to three days from the date of issuance of notice. Meaning thereby, the respondent-appellant No.5 would have been allowed the opportunity to submit the document for a reasonable period

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

[CW-2219/2026]

(6 of 7)

of ten to twelve days, but in the present case, not a grace period of one day has been allowed and the Authorities have counted seven days given in the notice from the date of issuance of notice and passed the order of cancellation of lease deed on the very same day on which seven days completed.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent JDA has acted in a very hasty and illegal manner and thus, can safely say that the Tribunal has not committed any error in setting aside the order dated 18.12.2023.

¶51

In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is based on a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2021 by which he is said to have purchased the land from the original khatedars. It is to be noted that on the date of the alleged sale deed, the original khatedars did not have the possession over the land in question as it was already acquired by the JDA for developing the Loha Mandi Scheme and award was also passed. The alleged sale deed in view of the aforesaid facts is thus, void ab initio and thus petitioner’s claim based on such sale deed is not tenable.

¶52

In view of the foregoing discussion, the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner has no force and is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA is affirmed.

¶53

However, looking to the peculiar facts of this case as regards the allegations of forgery etc. against the respondent-appellant No.5, Chand Khan, the respondent JDA

¶54

[2026:RJ-JP:5597]

¶55

[CW-2219/2026]

¶56

would be at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the respondent in respect of the alleged lease deeds dated 27.11.2012 and 27.12.2012 and take a fresh decision after giving an appropriate opportunity of show cause and hearing to the concerned party.

¶57

The stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed.

¶58

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶59

ARTI SHARMA /35

Ramesh Atal Son of Shri Kaluram v. Jaipur Development Authority (Jda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Atal Son of Shri Kaluram v. Jaipur Development Authority (Jda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Niwas Gupta Vs Raj. Financial Corporation

Rajdarbar Pinkcity Developments Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Nivali Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Balaji Steel Industries Vs State of Rajasthan

Nisha Kumari W/O Naresh Kumar D/O Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukut Bihari S/O Shri Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan