1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGEMENT D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1191/08 Shri Manik Lal Sanghi vs. Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: 6th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kishuk Jain for the appellant Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 29.8.2006 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner filed against the judgement of Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal dated 26.3.1996 has been dismissed. The appellant originally approached the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal in a reference case with the grievance that the land lying in front of plots no.497, 498 and 499 was in fact part of khasra no.10 of which he is the owner. The Tribunal by its order dated 26.3.1996 upon hearing the appellant and the respondent-JDA rejected the claim of the appellant holding that he was not able to prove that the land in dispute was part of khasra no.10. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in fact this land was part of khasra no.14 which the appellant himself sold to New Pink City Grah Nirmal Sahakari Samiti and Samiti submitted a lay out plan to the JDA in which this land was shown as part of road and lay out plan having since been approved, the land being part of the road, now vests in JDA. The review petition was also filed by the appellant which was rejected by 2 the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 1.1.1997. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant holding that the Tribunal upon examination of the material on record and enquiry has held that land was part of khasra no.14 and not of khasra no.10 which has since been developed as road. The learned Single Judge however held that dismissal of the writ petition would not affect rights of the petitioner to seek any relief against the Society. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that none of the courts below have appreciated the fact that in the lay out plan submitted by the society to the JDA, this patch of the land was shown as part of the workshop owned by the petitioner. Subsequently, however, the Society by a mischief submitted another lay out plan incorporating such land as part of the road and that lay out plan was approved by the JDA behind the back of the appellants and therefore it cannot bind him. Layout plan was approved without inspection of the site and without application of mind. Revenue trace maps submitted by the appellant were completely ignored. On perusal of the impugned order, however, we find that the Tribunal has analysed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the land was part of khasra no.14 and not of 10. The JDA has taken a categorical stand before this Court that this land in fact was sold to New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti by none other than the petitioner himself and that this is part of khasra no.14. When the petitioner tried to encroach upon this land, an FIR was also lodged against him with 3 Bajaj Nagar Police Station. The JDA has therefore maintained that the lay out plan having been approved, this land according to Rule 30(2) of the Sub Divisional and Reconstitution Rules, 1975 now vest in the JDA. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal either in the reference case or in the review petition. The learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in not interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal because question whether the disputed land falls within khasra no.14 or khasra no.10 is essentially a question of fact and if on material evidence, the Tribunal has come to hold this to be part of khasra no.14, no material to the contrary has been brought to our notice to show that the finding so recorded was in any manner perverse or otherwise erroneous. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that judgement of the reference passed by the Tribunal would not in any way affect the right of the petitioners to seek any remedy, that may be available to them, against the Society. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. ravi/-