JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BAJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter comes up on the application (Inward No.36678) filed on 17.8.2012 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India by the respondents for vacating the interim order dated 13.7.2012 by which this court while admitting the appeal and issuing the notice to the respondents ordered that "In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of land in dispute with regard to its possession as well as entry in the revenue record."

(2.) THE appellant, Jaipur Development Authority (for short "the JDA") has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.5.2012 dismissing S.B. Civil Review Petition No.222/2008 filed by the appellant for review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8768/2007, Baji Ram and Anr v/s State of Rajasthan and Ors whereby the learned Single Judge directed while allowing the said petition for recording the names of the respondents No.1 and 2 in the revenue record in the execution of the order dated 25.4.1976 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The grievance which was raised by the appellants before us and so also before the learned Single Judge, was that the writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge without having issued notices to the appellants but merely having issued notice to the Government Advocate who was present in the court directing him to accept notice, however the Government Advocate did not, in fact, represent the appellant JDA and accordingly on the basis of the above, the writ petition came to be allowed and that the appellant JDA never got an opportunity to appear and make the submissions before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the State of Rajasthan in the review petition has specifically therefore raised the issue which is now being sought to be raised by the JDA in the present appeal that no notice has been served upon them and no opportunity of hearing was given to the JDA.