LT.COL.ROHTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT intra court appeal has been jointly filed by seven appellants against the order & judgment passed by the ld.Single Judge dt.05.07.2013 directing State Authorities including Jaipur Development Authority to allot plots to such of the writ petitioners who not only remained successful in the draw of lottery but also deposited the amount pursuant to the demand letter issued to them. At the same time, the ld.Single Judge further directed the respondents to consider the cases of other category of writ petitioners who had deposited registration fee and paid the amount in part pursuant to the draw of lottery and demand letter & in respect of such of the writ petitioners the respondents may consider their case and take a sympathetic view for the second category of writ petitioners at the earliest but in any case not later than three months. At the same time, the ld.Single Judge further observed that the order dt.21.06.2012 issued under the signatures of the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban & Housing (UDH), cannot be given effect to as it has not been expressed in the name of HE the Governor, as mandated by Art.166(1) of the Constitution. However, liberty was granted for passing fresh order after due compliance of R.11 of the Rules of Business so as Art.166(1) of the Constitution, with certain other directions but that are not so material for the present purpose.

(2.) THE appeal has been filed by the appellants, who were not party in the pending proceedings before the ld.Single Judge, assailing the judgment of the ld.Single Judge dt.05.07.2013 primarily on the premise that their rights are adversely affected by the judgment of the ld.Single Judge to the extent that they are also similarly situated persons like such of the writ petitioners who are referred to in para 1 of the directions issued under the judgment impugned dt.05.07.2013, as it has been confined to the writ petitioners alone and on parity seeking their inclusion in para 1 of the directions under judgment impugned.

(3.) THE necessary facts which culled out from the record, relevant for the purpose, are that the appellants and the writ petitioners were applicants of Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (in short "PRN Scheme ") of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (in short "the JDA "). The subject land was acquired for the scheme to establish a residential colony and the challenge to the acquisition proceedings attained finality with the verdict of the Apex Court dt.03.10.1997 and thereafter JDA launched PRN Scheme in the month of October, 1997 and the appellants, as alleged, applied for allotment of plots in PRN Scheme. The lottery was drawn wherein the appellants remained successful but as alleged they were denied allotment of plots in PRN Scheme. It has been further alleged by the appellants that JDA issued demand letters quantifying the amount which was to be deposited by the appellants in the year 2006 and one of the allotment cum demand letter dt.15.06.2006 (Ann.2) was issued in the name of one Rohtan Singh (appellant) for allotment of plot in Kalpana Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (one of the successful allottee of PRN Scheme) and in terms of the allotment cum demand letter it has been alleged that the amount was deposited but still the JDA failed to give possession of the plots to the appellants but as it reveals no remedy or measures were adopted by either of the appellants for taking possession of the plots, referred in terms of their allotment cum demand letters, in any court of law and as it appears the respondent State took a decision for regularization of plots in favour of such of those applicants who were in possession of the piece of land which is part of the subject land for which acquisition proceedings at one stage were initiated and to streamline the matter, the Department of Urban and Housing (in short "Department of UDH ") issued an order dt.21.06.2012 taking decision to allot plots in favour of the occupants of the subject land after taking certain charges. At that stage when there was no decision taken, as regards handing over possession of plots to such of the applicants who had deposited the amount in terms of the allotment cum demand letter, number of writ petitions were filed seeking direction from the court for allotment of plots to those who remained successful in draw of lottery and deposited the amount pursuant to the demand letter issued to them but still possession was not handed over to them. At the same time, few of the writ petitioners also raised objection to the decision of State Government dt.21.06.2012 regarding allotment in favour of different categories on the rates prescribed under the impugned decision of the State Government being a method adopted to regularize the possession of alleged encroachers. So far as the present appellants are concerned, either of them have neither filed any writ petition regarding allotment of plots, if remained successful in draw of lottery nor if aggrieved by the decision of State Government dt.21.06.2012 issued under the signatures of the Principal Secretary, Department of UDH for allotment of different categories referred therein on the prescribed rates mentioned for the purposes took legal action permissible under the law.