K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) The prayer of the petition before the learned Single Judge reads as under: "(a) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record and examine the same. (b) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.1989 to the extent it restricts the tenure of the lease renewed upto 31.03.1990 and Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the renewal is for the period of 99 years starting from the execution of the original lease deed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1994. (c ) By issuance of the suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.06.2007 passed by the respondent No. 3. (d) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 07.04.2017 issued by the respondent No. 3 and Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the petitioners are in lawful occupation of the land demised under lease deed dated 29.08.1952. (e). In the alternative but without prejudice to the above stated submissions it is prayed that by issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for renewal of the lease deed dated 29.08.1952 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. (f) Pass any other appropriate order or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice. (g) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) In our considered opinion, the so-called order which is now produced on record of the year 1992 was before the learned Single Judge which has been produced before us by way of Order 41, Rule 27. Petitioners, themselves were the party, in the said order of 1992, was shown to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter has clearly observed that after 1989, the order a Government policy dated 14.08.2015 the question of extension will arise and on 03.11.1989 the order was very clear. Application of 1977 for renewal of lease was rejected in the year 1992. For the convenience, we reproduce the order of the learned Single Judge which reads as under: " I have considered the aforesaid and find that out of many grounds to challenge the order dated 16th June, 2007, competence of the officer has also been questioned. It has been replied by the respondents showing appointment of the Officer to act as Estate Officer thus the arguments about competence was pressed. The question is as to whether the order can be said to be non-est in reference to the definition of "unauthorised occupants" given under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1964. The issue aforesaid could have been raised by maintaining an appeal being factual in nature. The order was passed after expiry of the period of lease and an order to accept the lease amount. The petitioners had contested the case before the Estate Officer but did raise the issue as raised herein. They were restrained to challenge the order by maintaining an appeal thus challenge to the said order by this writ petition cannot be accepted. The delay of around 10 years remains unexplained. The challenge has been made even to the order dated 07th April, 2017. It has been passed by the Jaipur Development Authority. The challenge to the said order is on the ground that a reference of the order dated 03rd November, 1989 has been given thus it has been issued without application of mind. I find that the order dated 07th April, 2017 makes a reference about extension of period of lease till 31st March, 1990. The aforesaid was recommended by the State Government vide their letter dated 03rd November, 1989. The specific reference of the said letter was required when substance of the direction has been referred. Thus, the first ground urged by the petitioners for challenge to the order dated 07th April, 2017 cannot be accepted. The other argument is in reference to the order of the JDA Appellate Tribunal. It is available on record as it has been filed by either of the parties. In fact, a reference of the said order has been given by the respondents in their reply and by the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners can make an argument in reference to the order of Tribunal but it was against the order of JDA dated 08th January, 1990. What were the arguments raised therein and has been decided is before this Court. The order dated 08th January, 1990 is however enforceable by the JDA. The said order is otherwise a basis for the order under challenge. If the order dated 03rd November, 1989 issued by the Government is taken to be extension of lease, it was till 31st March, 1990 and beyond that. The restrain on the dispossession till policy comes does extend the lease period and, in the instant case, the Government had even issued an order on 14th August, 2015 giving out their policy decision on the issue. Thus, for the aforesaid reason also, effect of the letter dated 03rd November, 1989 came to an end and, otherwise, it cannot be considered to be renewal of lease for the whatever period given therein in absence of execution of deed by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kana Ram v. Regional Transport Authority and Anr. reported in RLR 1989 (2) 404 . The period of permit was extended for the period given under the provision, irrespective of the period, for which it was countersigned. The judgment in the case of Kana Ram (supra) was decided on its own facts. A reference of terms of agreement read with the provisions of law has been given. The judgment aforesaid was in reference to interstate agreement entered in the year 1968 and 1969, as modified in the year 1981. The prayer for countersigning of permit by the Haryana Government was accepted. It was held that a direction to the other State to countersign the permit for the period of three years cannot be given. It was, however, found that if there was no nationalised approved scheme under Section 68-D(2) and (3) of Motor Vehicles Act for any portion of the State of Haryana or routes in question. The issue was decided keeping aforesaid in mind. The argument in reference to Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 has also been raised. It provides for allotment of land for various purposes, which includes even public utilities. It can be with the prior approval of the State Government. The case in hand is for allotment of land but to seek extension. If the petitioners make an application for allotment of land under Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974, it can be considered appropriately but the case in hand does in any way attract Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974. It is also stated that the area in dispute has been transferred to the Municipal Corporation thus the JDA has no authority to pass any order. Learned Additional Advocate General admits that the area in dispute was transferred to the Municipal Corporation but an order was passed to retain those properties with JDA, in which litigation exists. In the instant case, litigation was pending before the civil court in a suit preferred by Dev Vrat Arya and JDA is a party to that litigation. In the light of the aforesaid, while area in dispute had been transferred to the Municipal Corporation, the property involved in this case was retained with the JDA thus challenge to authority of JDA to pass the order cannot be accepted. In view of above, challenge to the order dated 03rd November, 1989, 16th June, 2007 and 07th April, 2017 cannot be accepted. There is unexplained delay for challenge to the order dated 16th June, 2007 and 03rd November, 1989.";