ASOPA, J. - (1.) -These three cases-(i) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2008 (Ananad Kumar Sharma vs. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal & Ors.) (ii) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 545/2007 (Anand Kumar Sharma vs. Pradeep Choudhary, and (ii) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 512/2008 (Anand Kumar Sharma vs. Pradeep Choudhary) arise out of the same set of litigation, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being taken up for decision by this common order.
(2.) IN C.W.P. No. 601/2008, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. 263/2007 titled Anand Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary, J.D.A. and another whereby the Reference has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 545/2007 was filed by Anand Kumar Sharma for the alleged non-compliance of the interim order dated 2.11.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007 titled Anand Kumar Sharma vs. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal & Ors. filed against the interim order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal in the Temporary Injunction Application No. 514/2007 Anand Kumar Sharma vs. J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal and another in Reference No. 263/2007. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on 12.8.2008 on account of passing of the above final order dated 15.1.2008 in Reference No. 263/2007 by the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal. Against the above final order dated 15.1.2008, the present Writ Petition No. 601/2008 was filed. However, the aforesaid contempt petition was kept pending. The subsequent contempt petition-S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 512/2008 Anand Kumar Sharma vs. Pradeep Chaudhary has been filed in the present writ petition on 21.10.2008 when the interim order dated 12.8.2008 passed in CWP No. 601/2008 was said to be not complied with. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that joint Khatedari land of the petitioner and his brothers of Khasra Nos. 708/3, 724, 823 and 824 situated in Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur is immediately adjacent to the land of respondent No: 3 situated in Khasra Nos. 722, 723, 825 and 826 at Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Respondent No. 3 M/s. Joy Syndicate Enclave Pvt. Ltd. made an application to the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act of 1956') for surrendering of Khatedari rights and for permission to develop a Group Housing Scheme therein. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is not aggrieved of the conversion order under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 as well as approved plan passed by respondent No. 2 J.D.A. in favour of i respondent No. 3 M/s. Joy Syndicate Enclave Pvt. Ltd. but he is aggrieved of the inaction on the part of J.D.A. for not restraining the respondent No. 3 from making construction in excess of the approved plane towards his side despite the representation and submission of the copies of the survey reports wherein boundaries of the aforesaid Khasra numbers of the petitioner and his brothers have been categorically demarcated. It is categorically stated in para 6 of Reference Application (Annexure- 7) filed under Section 83(8) (b) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as "the J.D.A. Act, 1982") that it is the duty of the J.D.A. to see that the construction should be allowed to be made as per approved plan and in case any construction is made in violation of the approved plan, then, the person concerned be restrained from doing so but the J.D.A. respondent No. 2 did not restrain the respondent No. 3. Thus, the J.D.A. failed to discharge its duties under the J.D.A. Act, 1982, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for injunction against the J.D.A. respondent No, 2 herein (Non-applicant No. 1 before the Tribunal) for restraining the respondent No. 3 herein (Non application No. 2 before the Tribunal) from making construction outside the scope of approved plan, in the joint Khatedari land of the petitioner and his brothers resulting encroachment in Khasra Nos. 708/3 and 724 at village- Sirsi, Tehsil and district-Jaipur and further, in case any illegal construction has been made then the same be demolished. The injunction was also sought against respondent No. 3 to the same effect. The Tribunal was having the jurisdiction to grant the injunction against both the respondents and wrongly refused the same on 15.1.2008 for want of jurisdiction.
(3.) THE respondent No. 3 herein (respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal) filed reply to the reference application as well as present writ petition and submitted therein that the petitioner himself has stated that he has no grievance of conversion of the land under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 as well as approved plan and the dispute raised by the petitioner is simply a boundary dispute, which is outside the scope of the J.D.A. Act, 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by J.D.A. and respondent No. 3 and submitted therein that the respondent No. 3 is making construction in excess of the approved plan towards his side resulting encroachment in Khasra Nos. 708/3 and 824. The J.D.A. Tribunal first passed the interim order on 18.7.2007 whereby injunction in favour of the petitioner was refused by observing that in case ultimately it is found while deciding the reference application that the construction has been made towards the side of the petitioner then he may be suitably compensated in terms of money. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.7.2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6876/2007 was filed wherein vide interim order dated 2.11.2007, the respondents were restrained from making any construction over the disputed land, the Tribunal after passing the aforesaid interim order dated 2.11.2007 by this Court, without directing the J.D.A. to conduct the inspection whether the construction is being made as per approved plan or not and further whether the construction is being made as per approved plan or not and further whether the same is as per the provisions of J.D.A. Act, 1982 and the Rules or Building Bye-laws, proceeded to decide the J.D.A. Act, 1982 and the Rules or Building Bye-laws, proceeded to decide the reference application considering the fact that in the order dated 2.11.2007, there is no stay on further proceedings before the Tribunal and rejected the reference application on 15.1.2008 on the ground that the present case is of boundary dispute of the agricultural land which falls within the ambit of Section 111 of the Act of 1956 and the matter did not relate to the J.D.A. as there was no act or omission on the part of respondent No. 1-J.D.A. which could be complained of by the petitioner, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. However, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ;