FAROOQ HASAN,J. - (1.) THE aforesaid two Review Applications have been filed against the common order dated 17.4.91 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2185/88, 2770/88 and 2791/88. Against the aforesaid judgment/order Smt. Kusum Gupta, whose writ petition No. 2185/88 was dismissed has already filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that has been admitted.
(2.) THE other two petitioners namely; Gourishanker and Nand Kumar Agrawal have filed Review Applications. As the common question of law is involved in these Review Applications and as such, they are decided by a common judgment. The brief relevant facts of the case, are that the petitioners became members of 'New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited' for its Sidharth Nagar Scheme, Jaipur and deposited the requisite fees and charges. The Society allotted Plots No. E -45 and E -124 in Sidharth Nagar Scheme to Shri Gourishanker and Nand Kumar Agrawal respectively vide allotment letters No. 6308 and 6309 dated 18.2.1987 and possession thereof was also handed -over to the petitioners. The petitioners deposited conversion charges alongwith penalty. They further deposited development charges to the Additional Collector (South), Agriculture Land Conversion, Jaipur who leased out the aforesaid plots to the petitioners for a period of 99 years and leased -deeds were registered in the name of Governor for 99 years in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also deposited the development charges, inspection charges, security charges and insurance fee with the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the J.D.A.). The J.D.A. also approved Building Plans as proposed by the petitioners subject to leaving of set backs as directed in the sanction letter. The J.D.A. further demanded some amount for issuing the approved building plans, which was also deposited by the petitioners. But when the petitioners started raising construction in accordance with the approved plans, the officers of the J.D.A. did not permit the petitioners to continue the constructions. Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court praying that the State of Rajasthan be restrained from interfering in the user and enjoyment of the disputed plots and further that, the J.D.A. be restrained from interfering in the construction work, which was in accordance with the approved and sanctioned plans of the J.D.A. itself. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to act in accordance with the promise and assurance given by them by registered lease deeds and approved building plans. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petitions be not admitted. Notices were served on both the respondents but respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan did not file any reply to the writ petition but the respondent No. 2 Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur filed reply to the writ petitions alleging that the petitioners were not the members of the aforesaid Society but in fact, they purchased the plots from the plot -holders and this purchase was illegal and in violation of the Conversion Rules, 1981. It was further alleged that the disputed lands were acquired and acquisition proceedings were held valid by the Supreme Court and Award was also given on 17.12.1976. It was further alleged that the order of conversion was provisional in nature; that there was no sale -deed either in favour of the Housing Society or in favour of the members of the Housing Society; that the Housing Society had purchased the lands through Agreement to sale and no title had ever been passed in favour of the Housing Society and as such, the petitioners, who were allottees of the Housing Society had no right to raise any construction. It was further alleged that if the petitioners had deposited the conversion charges before the Additional Collector (South), Agriculture Land Conversion, Jaipur that has no redegency and all the proceedings of conversion were void as the same were contrary to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Land Conversion (Allotment, Conversion Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial purpose in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1981). In para 4 of the reply, it has been mentioned that the land had already been vested with the State Government. In para 8, it has been mentioned that while making recommendations dated 4.3.85, the Jaipur Development Authority had specifically mentioned and put five conditions. The Housing Society failed to fulfill the said conditions with the result that the land was acquired by issuance of Award and same was held to be valid upto Apex Court and as such, the petitioners had no right or title over the plots in question and the same vests in the respondents. It has also been mentioned that on account of permission for construction, the petitioners would not get any right or title over the disputed plots. It has also been mentioned that on account of acquisition of land, the order with respect to conversion of land automatically came to an end. The officers of the Jaipur Development Authority never gave any promise to the petitioners for raising the construction over the disputed plots. The raising of construction by the petitioners was also denied by the respondents and it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
(3.) THIS Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties vide its order dated 17.4.89 dismissed all the there writ petitions. As mentioned above, Smt. Kusum Gupta had already filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, whereas, the present petitioners filed Review Applications. During this period, Hon'ble Shri S.S. Byas, J. retired and as such, the Review Applications were listed for admission before Hon'ble Shri D.L. Mehta J. on 13.11.91, show cause notices were issued to the respondents. Both the respondents have been served. After retirement of Hon'ble Shri D.L. Mehta, J. the Review Applications were listed before us for admission. Respondent No. 2 -Jaipur Development Authority was represented by Shri R.S. Mehta, Advocate but none was present on behalf of the State of Rajasthan inspite of service of notices.;