ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-contemnor.
(2.) MR. R.B. Mathur appearing for respondent-contemnor submits that the direction of this Court under its order dated 08.12.2010 was that the JDA would consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 16.03.2006, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal in reference No.86/2002, titled as Top Khana Desh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and Ors. Counsel submits that a perusal of the order dated 16.03.2006, passed by the JDA Tribunal as aforesaid indicates that direction was that the members-allottees of Top Khana Desh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti (hereinafter 'the Samiti') not be restrained from using and enjoying of their respective plots which had been subsequently marked as facility area in the modified Vishnupuri Scheme of the society. Counsel submits that in compliance with the directions of this Court, vide letter dated 03.02.2012 the petitioner was informed that the JDA was not obstructing the petitioner in the use and enjoyment of his plot No.14 in Vishnupuri Residential Scheme and further that the facility area as per the modified Scheme was not being allotted to any third party. It is submitted that the letter dated 03.02.2012 is in full compliance with the direction of this Court dated 08.12.2010 as also with the order dated 16.03.2006, passed by the JDA Tribunal. Counsel submits that the effort of the petitioner in the contempt petition is to extend the scope of the direction of this Court passed on 08.12.2010 and somehow manage obtain lease-deed from the JDA in respect of his plot in issue under threat of contempt. Counsel submits that the contempt petition cannot be utilized for expanding the scope of the direction passed earlier by this Court on 08.12.2010 and now the issue of lease-deed may, if all, constitute only a fresh cause of action. Mr. G.P. Kaushik appearing for the petitioner would submit that order dated 16.03.2006 passed by the JDA Tribunal and the direction of this Court passed on 08.12.2010 impliedly entailed the consequence of the petitioner being issued a lease-deed. He submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner's possession is protected and the petitioner has been allowed the use and enjoyment of plot in issue, it would serve nobody cause if the legal rights of the petitioner were kept in a limbo and the petitioner was denied the issue of lease-deed. Counsel submits that the direction passed by this Court on 08.12.2010 entailed in fact a direction to issue the lease-deed to the petitioner or alternatively a rejection of his application for grant of lease-deed in respect of plot in issue.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent-contemnor, I am of the view that the scope of contempt petition is limited to ensuring the compliance with the directions of this Court. This Court vide order dated 08.12.2010 had directed that the orders passed by the JDA Tribunal in reference No.86/2002 decided on 16.03.2006 be complied with qua the petitioner. A bare look at the order dated 16.03.2006 passed by the JDA Tribunal indicates that there is no direction with regard to issue of lease-deed to the members-allottees of the Samiti such as the petitioner in respect of the Vishnupuri residential scheme. The directions were limited to protecting the possession, use and enjoyment of the members-allottees of the Samiti.;