1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.610/99 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3632/95 JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S RAJESH DORAJKA & Anr and D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.618/99 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5412/89 JAIPUR DEAVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S BANWARI LAL SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT :: MARCH 12, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri N.K. Joshi, Sr. Adv., with Shri Sanjay Joshi for appellants. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT : (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Against the order dated July 5, 1990 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA'), respondent filed an appeal u/s 83(8) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), which was registered as Appeal No.41/1990. The Said appeal was dismissed 2 by the Tribunal vide order dated July 22, 1995. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the respondent preferred writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide order dated January 13, 1999. Hence these appeals. We find that the directions given by the learned Single Judge in regard to allotment of plots are illegal in view of 8(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 according to which 25% plots of every scheme can be allotted by way of auction. Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1974 reads as under : “(2) In the Scheme, the plots for allotment and sale by auction shall be clearly indicated 25% of the total sale-able area of residential plots shall be reserved for auction, and the area of such plots shall not be less than 270 Sq. Meters and not more than 400 Sq. Meter.” We also notice that since in the book-let, the term “approx.” was used before 3000 plots, the same shows estimated number of plots and therefore allotting 2724 plots instead of 3000 plots was totally justified. The waiting 3 list prepared by the JDA with a view that if any allotment is cancelled, the persons whose names had been shown in the waiting list, shall be allotted such plots. Since all the allottees of 2724 plots from the main list accepted the plots and no allotment was cancelled, no question arose for allotting any plots to the persons from the waiting list. In our opinion, the leaned Single Judge did not appreciate this factual position and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. For these reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order dated January 13, 1999 of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. (Guman Singh), J. (Shiv Kumar Sharma),J. Chauhan/