Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking various directions and declarations, and also challenging the impugned notices issued by the respondent -JDA under the Jaipur Development Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDA Act').
(2.) THE petitioners initially had filed the petition seeking regularisation of their lands bearing Khasra Nos. 193 and 193/248 situated in Village Beed Khatipura, Jaipur in compliance of the order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the Settlement Committee, and for restraining the respondents from taking the possession of the said lands, and from depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right of enjoyment of the said lands. The said petition was sought to be amended by the petitioners as certain wrong statements were made in the petition with regard to the khasra numbers in question, and as the respondent -JDA pending the petition had issued the impugned notices under Section 34 -A and Section 72 of the JDA Act. The said amendment was permitted to be carried out as per the order dated 8.12.14. After the amendment of the petition, following prayers have been prayed for: - "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No. 193, 193/248 situated in Village Beed Khatipura, Jaipur in compliance of the order dated 10.4.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the State Level Committee; B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed not to take possession of the land of the petitioners in Khasra No. 193, 193/248 situated in Village Beed Khatipura, C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed not to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate right of enjoyment of property; C -1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the notices dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure -14, 15, 17 & 18) issued by the respondent No. 2 under section 72 of the JDA Act, 1982 to the petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside and further all the notices u/s. 72 of JDA Act, 1982 dated 14.11.2014 issued regarding the shops situated on khasra No. 193 and 193/248 be also quashed and set aside and all subsequent action taken in furtherance thereof also be quashed and set aside. C -2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the orders dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure -9 & Annexure -11) passed by the respondent No. 1 and orders dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure -8 & Annexure -10) passed by the respondent No. 2 may be quashed and set aside. C -3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction all the notices dated 11.11.2014 issued under section 34(A) of the Act of 1982 be also quashed and set aside. C -4. By an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be held that the subject land of khasra No. 193 & 193/248 situated at Beedkhatipura, Jaipur is not government property and the petitioners are having legal and valid title & rights the said land. D. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the petitioners may also be passed. E. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners." The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the petitioners who are the brothers, were the khatedar -tenants of the agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 193 admeasuring 25 bighas and 2 biswas and bearing Khasra No. 193/248 admeasuring 12 bighas and 5 biswas respectively. According to them, on The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act') having come into force, the proceedings under the said Act were carried out by the competent authority, though the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the lands in question. The petitioners had challenged the said proceedings by filing the petitions before this court and the same having been dismissed, the petitioner No. 2 had also filed SLP before the Apex Court. In the meantime, the ULC Act came to be repealed in 1999. The petitioners thereafter had made the applications before the Settlement Committee constituted under Section 83 -A of the JDA Act for settling their disputes with the JDA, and the said applications were decided by the said Settlement Committee on 10.4.02. The directions given in the said decision of the Settlement Committee were also sought to be implemented by both the parties and accordingly the petitioners had deposited part of the amount i.e. Rs. 1.45 crores with the JDA pursuant to the demand notices issued by the JDA for the regularisation of the lands in question. It is further case of the petitioners that one PIL being No. 2658/03 was filed before the High Court, challenging the constitution of the Settlement Committee and hence the said committee was dissolved by the State Government on 15.9.04. The said PIL was disposed of by the High Court on 16.8.12. Thereafter the matter was being considered by the empowered committee of the State Government, as the representation was made by the petitioners on 13.8.13. Since the petitioners apprehended that the JDA would forcibly take away the possession of their lands, they had filed the petition on 11.11.14 and on the same day, the officers of the JDA pasted notices under Section 34 -A of the JDA Act on the premises of the petitioners, which premises were being used by the petitioners as the marriage gardens since 2008. The present petition thereafter was sought to be amended as during the pendency of the petition the respondent -JDA had further issued notices under Section 72 of the JDA Act alleging that the petitioners had made encroachments and caused obstructions on the public land. The petitioners therefore have challenged the said notices issued by the respondent -JDA and have sought the directions and declarations as mentioned hereinabove.
(3.) THE petition has been resisted by respondents by filing the reply giving details about the orders passed and the actions taken by the authorities under the ULC Act, as also the orders passed by the High Court in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioners. It has been further contended that the proceedings under the ULC Act had attained finality, and the vacant lands out of the said khasra numbers of the petitioners had already vested in the Government in the year 1984. According to the respondents when the petitioners did not comply with the orders passed under sub -section 5 of Section 10 of the ULC Act, the competent authority had taken over the possession of the vacant land after using necessary force on 6.12.86 and the memos - 'Fard' were also prepared in this regard. The said lands thereafter were mutated in favour of the JDA on 17.8.91. It is further contended that the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act were challenged by the petitioners by filing the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, and the petitioners had also filed the petitions before the High Court on the ground that the provisions of the ULC Act were not applicable to the said lands. However, the said appeals before the Divisional Commissioner and the writ petitions filed before the High Court having been dismissed and the special appeals filed before the Division Bench of this court also having been dismissed, the proceedings under the ULC Act had attained the finality. According to the respondents, prior to the date 7.10.99 on which the ULC Act was repealed, the lands in question had already vested in the State Government and the possession of the same was also handed over by the competent authority to the JDA on 6.12.86. The cheques for compensation were also issued to the petitioners, and therefore there was no question of petitioners' challenging the said proceedings of the ULC Act before the Settlement Committee. According to the respondents, the petitioners had suppressed the material facts before the Settlement Committee, and the Settlement Committee also did not notice that the proceedings under the ULC Act had already attained finality. Since the order of Settlement Committee was illegal and void ab initio, and since the petitioners themselves did not comply with the directions given in the said order, the question of implementation of the said decision after so many years did not arise. It is contended that there was inter se dispute going on between the petitioners as per the record of the JDA and the petitioners had not come with clean hands. Under the circumstances, the respondent -JDA was well within its rights to protect its property vested in it by issuing the notices under Section 34 -A and Section 72 of the JDA Act. It is also contended that the entire case was built up by the petitioners on the concealment of facts and even otherwise, the alternative statutory remedy being available to the petitioners under Section 83 of the JDA Act, the present petition deserved to be dismissed.;