"Cannot Throw Them Out Before Ventilating Their Grievances": Rajasthan HC Restrains JDA From Demolishing Construction Over Private Property In New Sanganer
The Rajasthan High Court's Vacation Bench has restrained the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) from demolishing constructions over private property in New Sanganer, pending further consideration by the Regular Bench.
Earlier in 2021, a Division Bench of the Court, referring to the judgment in Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan (2017), had ordered JDA to identify and remove encroachments from public roads including the route from Mansarovar Metro Station to Sanganer Flyover.
A Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed, “JDA is restrained from demolishing the construction of property of the petitioner(s) on private land, having rightful title of the land.”
Advocate Pallavi Mehta represented the petitioner, while Advocate Anuroop Singhi appeared for the respondent.
The land in question was initially acquired for the purpose of development of Prithviraj Nagar, which was later de-acquired. Several constructions were raised on the land acquired by the JDA (State Government) and a large part of the land was already regularized and pattas were issued.
The Division Bench had passed a general direction in the PIL, which meant that the individual cases of the petitioner(s) were neither examined nor adjudicated. The directions reflected that the JDA would be under obligation to initiate the removal of encroachment unless there was an interim order/stay order passed by any higher authority or by the court of law. The Division Bench further recognised the right of hearing and passing of appropriate order by the Authority concerned.
The Court further added, “Since, we are Single Judge, Vacation Bench and the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench is general in nature for removal of encroachment, but if any person has any grievance on the basis of his rightful claim, then he can seek remedy. As a stopgap arrangement, we are inclined to grant protection to the petitioner(s) on private property owned by them till their matter is considered by a Regular Bench after Vacation.”
"...As Hon'ble Division Bench has not passed any specific order with regard to petitioner(s) are concerned, therefore, if the petitioner(s) have a right to continue to remain in possession on the basis of title as claimed by them, then the order of Division Bench is not applicable upon them, but same has to be examined by the Court of Law. The petitioners are before us and by a thumb Rule, we cannot throw them out before ventilating their grievances.."
Being a Vacation Bench, the Court stated that it was only considering the cases for a very limited purpose with the object of not only providing justice but also redress the grievances of the petitioners.
Consequently, the Court held that “as the petitioner(s) are entitled for protection in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue notice to unserved respondent(s).”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on July 5, 2024.
Cause Title: Sitaram Sharma v. The State Of Rajasthan
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Pallavi Mehta, Nikhilesh Katara, Vishnu Kumar Sharma, M.S. Raghav and Vishwas Saini
Respondent: Advocates Anuroop Singhi, Arjun Parashar, Nitish Kumar Bagri and Shretima Bagri
