SHANTA PAGARIA Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/8/2015, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 345/2012 titled as "Smt. Shanta Pagaria vs. Jaipur Development Authority', whereby the contempt petition so filed by the petitioner for compliance of the erstwhile directions/orders dtd. 27/8/2004 and 31/7/2009, was rejected.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very foundation of the order impugned dtd. 6/8/2015 is illegal and perverse, when juxtaposed with the factual matrix of the instant matter. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while rejecting the contempt petition so preferred by the petitioner, the learned Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal (hereinafter, Tribunal) has misplaced reliance upon the judgment of this Court enunciated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13084/2009 titled as Rakesh Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. To substantiate upon the said misplaced reliance by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide the said judgment, this Court observed that all public property so earmarked must be used for public purposes only. Furthermore, this Court, in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) had also directed the State of Rajasthan to ensure that no encroachments are made on public properties earmarked for public use. In essence, the ratio decidendi of the said judgment pertained to prevention of land grabbing viz-a-viz public land meant for public use.

(3.) In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject property in the instant petition was legally purchased by the petitioner in the Year 1968 from the erstwhile owner, Mr. Jeevan Singh vide sale deed dtd. 20/5/1968 and ever since the execution of the said sale deed, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property. Therefore, as the judgment in Rakesh Sharma (Supra) directs against misuse of public land by land grabbers and not legal purchasers of private property, the reliance so placed upon the same by the learned Tribunal is misplaced/flawed. Furthermore, in order to substantiate upon the private nature of the subject property, learned counsel for the petitioner averred that the subject property was relieved from being "facility area' in the Year 2009, much prior to the judgment of Rakesh Sharma (Supra) passed on 7/7/2011. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that as is apparent from the letter dtd. 26/6/2014, the JDA has shown its inability to issue patta qua the subject property to the petitioner, not traversing the fact that the subject property admittedly has been relieved from being a "facility area' by the JDA itself in the Year 2009 i.e. two years prior to the passing of the judgement in Rakesh Sharma (Supra), as erroneously relied upon by the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the contempt petition preferred by the petitioner.