AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.)
(2.) AT joint request, since identical controversy is involved, these writ petitions are being disposed of together. Counsel for respondents -JDA submits that identical petitions were decided in the light of the judgment dt.10/01/2008 of the Division Bench in Rajkumar Jain Vs. State (D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.5726/2007) - operative part whereof reads ad infra: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority ensures the Court that no illegality whatsoever would be committed in allotment of the lands of Transport Nagar, and in case any such deficiency is pointed out by any person, that shall again be examined and things will proceed in accordance with law. In view of the statement made at the Bar by Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Jaipur Development Authority, in our considered view, no further action is required in the matter. This public interest litigation is consigned to records. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise grievance in case some lands are allotted to fictitious persons by way of proxy allotment and the same shall be examined by the Jaipur Development Authority and necessary action shall be taken in the matter. Both the Counsel jointly submit that petitioners are similarly situated and their petitions may be decided in the light of DB judgment (supra).
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , these petitions are disposed of with the directions that if the petitioner submit representation to the competent authority (Commissioner, JDA) the same shall be decided within two months from the submission of such representation, by a speaking order in the light of DB judgment dt.10/01/2008 in Raj Kumar Jain Vs. State (supra), and the decision may be communicated to the petitioner, who if feels aggrieved, may avail of remedy under the law. No costs.;