RAMESHWAR SHARMA Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dt. 15/3/2016, the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the 'Tribunal'), allowed an application for impleadment of third party-New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (for short, 'respondent-Society') and prayer for its review declined vide order dt. 17/5/2017; is the cause for institution of the present writ application praying for the following relief(s):

(2.) Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that: the petitioner claiming himself recorded 'Khatedar' of land bearing Khasra No. 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 164, in Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, has filed a Reference Petition before the Tribunal. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that land acquisition proceedings with reference to subject land were initiated' under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of 1953'). Notice under Sec. 4 and 6 were issued on 26/4/1969 and 25/2/1973, respectively. Award was made on 2/4/1981. On an application for regularization of his possession on a part of subject land measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds., the State Government made an order dt. 23/10/2008, directing the respondent-JDA to issue a lease deed for land in possession measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds., subject to withdrawal of writ application instituted by the petitioner. The State Government in continuation of the order dt. 23/10/2008, made another order dt. 14/5/2014, directing the respondent-JDA to issue lease deed in favour of the petitioner wherein claim of the respondent-Society was rejected after due examination. According to the petitioner, the order dt. 14/5/2014, was not challenged any further by the respondent-Society. Pending the proceedings on the reference petition aforesaid; an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was instituted by the respondent-Society), which has been granted by the Tribunal vide impugned order dt. 15/3/2016 and an application for review of the order dt. 15/3/2016, has been declined vide order dt. 17/3/2017; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

(3.) Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, emphatically argued that impugned order made by the Tribunal dt. 15/3/2016 granting the application for impleadment as party and declining its review prayed vide order dt. 17/5/2017; are orders, absolutely illegal, invalid and arbitrary so also contrary to the well settled principles of law. Learned counsel referring to the prayer clause of the reference petition instituted, pending before the Tribunal, asserted that no relief has been prayed by the petitioner against respondent-Society, and therefore, respondent No. 2, is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.