Legal acquisition of the property…….. The court criticized the arbitrary actions of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), provided relief by directing the issuance of patta for the subject property to the petitioner.
Title: Late Smt. Shanta Pagaria W/O Late … vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16035/2015
Decided on: 19/12/2023
Coram: Justice SAMEER JAIN
Introduction
The court in this case, determines that the petitioner, who has been the legitimate buyer of the relevant property since 1968, should not be regarded as a land grabber after carefully reviewing the facts and legal implications. The court notes that the respondent-JDA was bound by the orders dated 27.08.2004, 31.07.2009, and 12.10.2009, which instructed the removal of the subject property from the “facility area.” These orders had reached their finality. In light of this, the court revokes the 06.08.2015 judgment and the 26.06.2014 letter ordering the respondent-JDA to grant the petitioner a patta for the relevant property and regularize it within a two-month period. It is stressed that the respondent-JDA will incur costs of Rs. 1, 00,000/-should they fail to comply with these instructions within the allotted time limit. In closing, the court grants the instant petition, resolves any outstanding applications, and clarifies the petitioner’s rights with regard to the subject property.
Facts of the case
The petitioner claims that in 2009, two years prior to the Rakesh Sharma ruling in 2011, her property was released from the classification of a “facility area.” The present legal dispute stems from the fact that the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has not granted a patta (land title) for the property in spite of this. The respondent-JDA contends that the Rakesh Sharma ruling, which they maintain is relevant to the petitioner’s case, prevents the subject property from receiving a patta even after it has been freed from the “facility area.” They contend that because both parties purchased land that was incorrectly designated as a “facility area,” the petitioner’s circumstances are comparable to those of the party impacted by Rakesh Sharma. The petitioner argues that Article 14 of the Constitution is violated and that the JDA’s actions are arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner requests that the contested order be quashed and that a patta be issued for the property in question.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
As the subject property was lawfully obtained in 1968, it is not covered by the Rakesh Sharma ruling, which forbids the taking of public land for private gain. It is accepted that the petitioner has owned the land continuously since 1968, and the JDA’s actions are seen as capricious. The subject property was ordered to be released from the “facility area” by both the State Government and the Tribunal, and these rulings are now final. The JDA did not offer a justification for the subject property’s inclusion in the “facility area. “The court orders the JDA to release the patta for the relevant property within a fortnight; failure to comply may incur a penalty of Rs. one million rupees. The letter dated June 26, 2014, and the contested order dated August 6, 2015, are annulled and set aside.
The court’s ruling, which directs the issuing of a patta for the relevant property, provides relief for the petitioner by highlighting the property’s lawful acquisition and denouncing the JDA’s capricious acts.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
