- (1.) THE appellant, Mr. Babu Lal Sharma, is aggrieved by the judgment dt. 7.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14259/2013 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be a resident of Plot No. 161, Vishveshwariya Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur. According to him, he has purchased Plot No. 54 in the said Vishveshwariya Nagar. Initially, Plot No. 57 -A belonged to one Mr. Naveen Chand. When the plot was sold to the original owner, there were certain conditions and regulations contained in the lease -deed issued by the J.D.A. Later on Mr. Naveen Chand sold the plot to Mr. Aakash Gupta respondent No. 3. The said Plot No. 57 -A had an area near about 11.11 square yards. According to the appellant, after purchasing the said plot, Mr. Aakash Gupta started a construction allegedly of flats. He constructed a basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor. On each floor, he constructed two flats. As long as Mr. Gupta raised the construction in accordance with the approved plans, the appellant did not complain. But when he started to raise the construction for which he did not have approved plans, the appellant filed complaints with the J.D.A. The complaints were registered at Nos. 3929 and 4726 dt. 13.7.2013. The said complaints were filed with the Commissioner, J.D.A. as well as with the Deputy Commissioner, Zone -5. But despite having received the complaints, the J.D.A. did not take any action; it did not prevent further construction on the said plot. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file the writ petition before this Court. He prayed that the J.D.A. be directed to immediately demolish the illegal construction on plot No. 57A, Vishveshwariya Nagar Extension, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur. However, after hearing the learned counsel, by judgment dt. 7.8.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
(2.) MR . D.K. Dixit, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition ostensibly on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy under the J.D.A. Act. Although Section 83 of the Act does provide a remedy of appeal before the J.D.A. Tribunal, but the same cannot be availed of by the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the provision of appeal is available only when an order or notice has been issued by the J.D.A. However, in the present case, neither any order, nor a notice has been issued by the J.D.A. Thus, the appellant does not have the availability of alternative remedy to approach the JDA Tribunal by way of filing of an appeal. Secondly, according to Rule 30, a reference can be made to the Tribunal. But the said reference can only be made by the Secretary of the JDA, and not by a private person. Thus, the appellant neither has a remedy of filing of an appeal, nor a remedy of filing of a reference before the J.D.A. Tribunal. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has misinterpreted the scope and ambit of Section 83 of the JDA Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Amit Tanwani, learned counsel for JDA, has contended that Section 83 clearly provides that an appeal can be filed by any person, who is aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority. Therefore, Section 83 entitles the appellant to file an appeal before JDA Tribunal. Hence, learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that since the appellant has an alternative remedy, the writ jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. Section 83(8) of the JDA Act is as under: - - (8) xxxx xxxx xxx (a) any person aggrieved by an order or notice of the authority may file an appeal in the tribunal within thirty days or the communication of such order or notice to him; and (b) any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting his rights may refer the dispute to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or injury; and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final. ;