BALBIR SINGH TOMAR Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing instant criminal misc. petitioner under Sec. 482 CrPC, the accused petitioner has prayed to quash the criminal proceedings qua him pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2 (Special Court), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, bearing No.26/2016 (for short 'the learned trial court'), for the offence punishable under Sec. 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority, 1982 (for short 'the Act of 1982') qua him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Enforcement Officer, Zone 13, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur filed a complaint (Ex.P1) in the Court of learned ACJM No.2 (Special Court), JDA for offence punishable under Sec. 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 against the petitioner in the capacity of Chairman, Indian Medical Trust and one Mr. K.P Singh, the then Registrar, NIMS University, wherein it was alleged that during inspection conducted by Tehsildar, Zone 13, Ameen Zone 13 and Enforcement Officer Zone-13 on 20/11/2015, it was found that the petitioner and the other accused has encroached upon the land belonging to the JDA bearing Khasra No. 528 & 531 situated in Village Jugalpura, Tehsil Amer, Delhi Road, Jaipur. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken against the accused petitioner under Sec. 72 of the Act of 1982.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner argued and submitted that prior to filing the above complaint (Ex.P1) against the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Singh, one notice dtd. 20/11/2015 was sent to Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi w/o Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar, who is the mother of the petitioner, in which the JDA directed Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi to remove the construction from the encroached land within a period of three days. In the said notice, it was informed to the addressee that encroachment has been done on the land of the JDA by constructing G+3 storied building there. Counsel submitted that the said notice was non-est in the eye of law as Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi had expired way back on 23/12/2000. In these circumstances the notice was ex-facie, illegal and invalid. Counsel also submitted that the notice was given in the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and without any notice to the petitioner, he has been wrongly made as an accused in the present matter.