JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority against the order of Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 24.4.2012 in which appeal filed by respondent Ladu Ram against Shankar Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and other private respondents i.e. Mangli, Ram Chandra, Ram Lal, Om Shiv Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. has been allowed. The order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of JDA in his capacity as prescribed authority under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 for resumption of land under that provision and regularisation of the colony set up by the Shankar Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.

(2.) The said society approached the prescribed authority through the Administrator. The prescribed authority has passed the order dated 31.12.2001 for resumption of the land on being satisfied that the land has been put to non-agriculture use by invoking provisions of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act and Section 63 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Dispute was raised by the respondent Ladu in his appeal before the Divisional Commissioner that agreement to sale that was executed between him and the society was cancelled and the advance received by him was refunded. On that basis the Divisional Commissioner has set aside the order of resumption and regularisation under Section 90B passed on 31.12.2001. It is informed that the society itself has filed the writ petition challenging the order of Divisional Commissioner. The JDA has also filed writ petition, whereas the dispute is inter se between the society on one hand and the respondent Ladu Ram on the other hand, who claimed that the agreement to sale stood cancelled and therefore his share of the land i.e. 10 bighas ought not to have been resumed.

(3.) On being asked by the Court as to how JDA would be justified in assailing the order of Divisional Commissioner, the learned counsel for JDA has submitted that since the colony has been regularised, it is now the JDA's duty to defend the order passed by its Deputy Commissioner and that too when the Divisional Commissioner has entertained the appeal without condoning the delay.