SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . B.L. Gupta, appearing for respondent No. 2, at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order dt. 08.04.2008, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, Jaipur and submitted that from the impugned order, it is evident that the reference/appeal were decided by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of concession made by the counsel for the defendant No. 2, Sunil Kumar Sharma, now the petitioner before this Court. A perusal of the orders in reference/appeal both dt. 08.04.2008 indicates that the learned Tribunal has recorded that

(2.) MR . P.K. Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, has however submitted that the counsel appearing for the defendant No. 2 before the Appellate Tribunal, Mr. Vijay Kumar Mudgal had stated on oath that no concession was made by him before the Tribunal. He submits that in this view of the matter, the concession attributed to the petitioner through his counsel before the Appellate Tribunal should be overlooked and the challenge to the order dt. 08.04.2008 be addressed by this Court on merits. Mr. Sharma further submits that even otherwise the purported compromise between the parties contrary to law would be against the public policy of regulated development in Jaipur region as per the Building Regulations extant at the relevant time and ought not to have been considered by the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, concession made before the Court/Tribunal by the counsel for the parties or otherwise attributed to them if disputed have to be brought to the notice of the concerned Court/Tribunal by an appropriate application. This Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot second guess what concessions were made by the counsel before the Judicial authority below.