GOPAL DUTT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the interim stay order dated 19.8.82 passed by this Court should be confirmed.

(2.) MR . S.K. Tewari, appearing for respondent No. 6 and Mr. Garg, appearing for respondents No. 5, have prayed that the stay order should be modified, and that they should be allowed to competed the construction with the condition that in case the writ petition is accepted, they would themselves demolish the entire construction and would not claim any rights what -so -ever on account of the construction made during the pendency of the writ petition. Mr. N.L. Jain, Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has stated that so far as the State of Rajasthan, the Jaipur Development Authority and the Competent Authority of the Land Cerling Laws is concerned, they will have no objection either way, which means that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 have got no objection, if either the stay order is continued, or it is vacated or modified.

(3.) THE principle contention between the parties is, that whereas according to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the city of Jaipur about fifty thousand houses have been constructed in violation of relevant laws about ceiling, Land Revenue Laws, and provisions about permitting constructions by the U.I.T. as it was then, and now the Jaipur Development Authority, and things have been done by a racket of corruption in which high officer and authorities are involved, &, therefore, in the interest of public litigation, this court should put a halt on it by restraining constructions, directions demolition demolition of unlawful constructions and directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to function according to law by not permitting such corrupt officers to carry on nefarious activities in the corruption rackets, the contention of respondents 5 and 6 is that so far as they are concerned, they have purchased the land by agreement to sell, as copy of which has been filed, and before the stay order was issued, the construction has been upto roof level, and at the moment the construction is standing in an unsecured risky condition, because of lack of plastering, and the same should be allowed.