SBCWP NO.4613/2007. 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4613/2007. Smt.Asharfi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. Date of order :- 18/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri S.D. Khaspuria for the petitioner. Shri Rinesh Gupta for the J.D.A. **** The petitioner preferred this writ petition with the following relief:- “i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby declaring the action and proposed plan of the respondents No.1 and 2 in widening the existing 80 ft road in front of the house of petitioner to the width of 200 fts. road passing through Arya Veer Nagar, to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and discriminatory. ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby quashing the action and proposed plan of the respondents No.1 and 2 in widening the existing 80 ft road in front of the house of petitioner to the width of 200 fts. Road passing through Arya Veer Nagar. iii. By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to allot an alternate piece of land to the petitioner and such other losers equal to the land going to be acquired by the respondents No.1 and 2 for the proposed widening of the existing 80 ft. road to 200 fts. and further this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner with payment of cost of construction of the house on the plot in question which is going to be demolished due to widening of SBCWP NO.4613/2007. 2 the existing 80 ft. road at the prevailing market rate. iv. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the JDA be directed to approve the plots of the petitioner and such other persons in the Arya Veer Nagar Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur as per the JDA Plan in the same conditions as the colonies of similarly situated persons in the same are have already been approved and regularized and some of them are under the process of approval and regularization; further the colony of the petitioner be not discriminated in any manner. v. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby directing the respondents to pay cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2) Perusal of the prayers made by the petitioner reveals that petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the proposed plan of widening of roads i.e. from existing road of 80 feet, same is going to be widened upto 200 feets. The petitioner has prayed to restrain the respondents to widen the road or in alternative to allot alternative piece of land as prayed in sub-para (3) of the prayer clause. It has further been prayed that plot of the petitioner may be approved by the J.D.A. as per the J.D.A. plan on the same condition as was applied to other SBCWP NO.4613/2007. 3 colonies. Perusal of the relief clause shows that petitioner is aggrieved against the apprehended acquisition in regard to widening of the road. It goes without saying that if land is used for widening of road, the petitioner would get compensation as per the provisions of law. However, there is nothing on record to show that respondents have even initiated acquisition proceedings for that purpose so as to claim compensation or allotment of alternative plots. So far as the question of regularization and other grievances against the J.D.A. are concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Act, 1982, the petitioner is having remedy of Reference however, without availing the remedy as is available to the petitioner, he has preferred this writ petition more so remedy of reference can be sought against an apprehended threat also. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alternative remedy cannot be taken as an absolute bar to maintain the writ petition and secondly he has preferred the writ petition in view of illegal order passed by the SBCWP NO.4613/2007. 4 State Government. 4) Counsel for the petitioner could not show the order of the State Government which is either under challenge or shows infringement of the policy therefore, thus so far as second argument of the petitioner is concerned, is not acceptable. So far as the first argument is concerned, though it is true that an alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar to maintain a writ petition but it is the discretion of the court to exercise the remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such discretion can be exercised when the remedy otherwise available is not found to be efficacious. However, in the present matter, the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal is not only deciding the appeals/references expeditiously but even passing the interim-orders in the cases if so required. 5) In view of above, the petitioner could not give any reason as to why other remedy available has not been availed. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, writ petition is dismissed being premature for same reliefs or SBCWP NO.4613/2007. 5 otherwise not maintainable. However, the petitioner could maintain a Reference Petition before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of law. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil