- (1.) IN this writ petition, the main question to be decided is as to whether under section 29 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act , 1976 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') the limits of the open area for construction of building/dwelling unit refers to the whole or building or each dwelling unit. Before coming to this provision of law, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case.
(2.) THE petitioner purchased plot No. D-214 Bhasker Marg, Beni Park, Jaipur by registered sale deed dated 24th August,1985. This plot measures 1734. 90 sq. metres and at the time of purchase about 795. 42 sq. metres area was constructed. With a veiw to develop the land, the petitioner submitted building plans to the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (here in after referred to as the JDA) for approval and the building plans were approved by order dated 9. 12. 1992. According to this approved plan, the petitioner proposed to cover a total area of 838. 50 sq. metres and on each floor there were six dwelling units. THE area of each the dwelling unit was not more than 225 sq. metres. In the first instance the petitioner started raising constructions in area measuring 419. 25 sq. metres. It is so happens that Shri Ram Kumar Singh is the owner of plot No. D. 213, Bhasker Marg, Beni Park,jaipur, which is adjacent to the petitioner's plot. Shri Ram Kumar Singh is the Director, Land and Building Tax Department, and is a Superior Officer of respondent No. 3 Shri Todarmal Jain, who is the competent authortty-I (Additional Director), Urban Land and Ceiling Department. It is alleged in the petition that at the instance of Shri Ram Kumar Singh, Shri Todarmal Jain instituted proceedings against the petitioner by recording that he had received information through Mukhbir. The proceedings were initiated on 26. 03. 1993 and on this date he directed the Surveyor to inspect the sitr and submit the report and on 31s1 March,1993 the Surveyor inspected the site and submitted the report. On 2. 04. 1993 Shri Todarmal Jain issued notice to the petitioner for violating the provisions of sections 22 and 29 of the Act. The date fixed was 6th April,1993 on which the counsel for the petitioner took time as he was out of station hence, the case was adjourned on 13th April,1993 but till then the construction was stayed. The reply to the notice was filed on 1311 April,1993 and on this date, an application on behalf of the son of Shri Ram Kumar Singh and some others for giving them hearing in the matter was also moved. The case was fixed for 14napril,1993 but it was declared a Holiday. Then on 15th April,1993 arguments were heard. A fresh survey report was asked for and the Surveyor submitted the report on 17napril,1993 and after hearing further arguments, the Competent Authority held that there is no violation of Section 22 of the Act but further held that the J. D. A had approved the building plan for 945. 5 sq. meters which was more than 500 sq. meters as such there was violation of Sec. 29 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner as well as of the J. D. A that each dwelling unit was not more than 500 sq. metres was turned down. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against this order dated 22. 04. 1993. It is alleged that Shri Ram Kumar Singh was still not satisfied and he acted through Shri Todarmal Jain and a letter was written to the JDA cancel the plan approved in favour of the petitioner and thereafter without any notice to the petitioner, the JDA to by order dt. 28. 4. 1993 ordered that the plan approved on 9th Dec. ,1992 be held in abeyance. Hence, the order of the Competent Authority-I,dated 22n April,1993 and the order of the JDA dated 28 April,1993 have been challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that all the illegal orders have been passed at the instance of Shri Ram Kumar Singh, who is a senior officer of the State Government and the Competent Authority, as well as the JDA have abused their authority. The reply submitted by the JDA may be looked into as it would be relevant while considering the arguments which have been advanced. On behalf of the JDA it has been submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22. 04. 1993 of the Competent Authority-I, Urban Land Ceiling Department and the order by which permission for construction which was granted earlier has been put in abeyance by the JDA in the consequence of the order passed by the Competent Authority I, and an appeal has already been preferred against the order of the Competent Authority- I, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. The same relief cannot be prosecuted before two different forums. In para 20 of the reply it was specifically mentioned that the JDA approved ground coverage area of 838 sq, metres and no single unit exceeded 500 sq. metres and there was no violation of Section 29 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 Shri Todarmal Jain and respondent No. 4 Shri Ram Kumar Singh were served but they have not appeared to contest the matter. However, an application was moved on behalf of certain interveners who are the son of the respondent No. 4,ram Kumar Singh and some other persons of the area. They have filed a reply taking the plea that alternative remedy under the Act is available and on this ground, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the interveners were necessary parties as they were caveators before the appellate authority namely the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur. An objection has been raised that the Divisional Commissioner,jaipur Division,jaipur is a necessary party but he has not been impleaded as such. In parawise reply it is submitted that the petitioner concealed from the JDA that the old building upon the land would be demoloshed and had this been intimated te JDA WOULD not have granted permission for raising a multi storied building. The permission given by the JDA is said to be in violation of the provisions of the Act as the total plinth area was beyond the ceiling area of 500 sq. metres. The order of the Competent Authority-I has been supported and it is submitted that the approval of plan Was rightly suspended as it was in violation of Sec. 29 of the Act. Another plea raised is that of the provisions of the JDA Act are in conflict with the Act then in view of Sec. 42 of the Act, the latter would prevail. The right of the JDA to grant permission for raising multi-storied buildings in the area of old residential schemes has also been challenged as it will increase the pressure on the area. It may also be mentioned here that even though the interveners are directly connected with the respondent No. 4 nothing has been said about the allegations which have been raised against the respondent No. 4.
(3.) IN the rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that similar multi-storied buildings have been approved in the same area itself, and that the building which the petitioner wanted to construct is in accordance with the regulations of the JDA. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard for purposes of final disposal of this writ petition. The dates have been mentioned in the petition and also reproduced in this judgment in order to show the swift speed at which the Competent Authority- I proceeded in the matter of stay of construction which was being carried on by the petitioner. The matter was taken practically day to day so that no time was lost. ;