SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11506/2008. Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary Vs. Hastimal Singhvi & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11507/2008. Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary Vs. Girish Kumar Jain & Anr. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11508/2008. Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary Vs. Ram Ratan Kanungo & Anr. Date of Order:- December 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.K. Singhi for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Mehta for the respondents. ******* BY THE COURT:- All these three writ petitions were filed by the Jaipur Development Authority against the order of the Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal dated 7/3/2008 by which, reference submitted by the respondents in three different cases were accepted and Jaipur Development Authority was directed to dispossess the encroachers from the land in dispute and restore the possession of that land to the respondents and pass appropriate order regularising the order in their favour. SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 2 2) Contention of Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal has given a categorical finding that another society namely; Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti is claiming interest in the disputed property and made allotments to its members and its members are presently in possession of the land however, the Tribunal further held that their allotment orders have no value and they are simply waste papers and that members of this society are illegal trespassers. It is contended that unfortunately, no reply to the reference applications could be filed before the Tribunal and complete facts could not be brought before the Tribunal by and on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority; even then, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to require the respondents to implead either members, who are in possession of the land of the society or Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti as party-respondent before passing the final order. Learned counsel referred to another order passed by the Tribunal itself in Reference Case No.213/2001 dated 30/10/2002 wherein, one Smt.Geeta Jaimini was claiming Plot No.30 allotted from Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti. Tribunal allowed the reference application requiring the Jaipur Development Authority not to dispossess her from Plot No.30. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 3 matter be remanded to the Tribunal requiring impleadment of Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti as party respondent before passing the final order in presence of the contesting parties. It is also contended that even a trespasser, can only be dispossessed by the procedure known to law and by due process of law and no order can be passed behind the back of such person. 3) Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions and argued that reference applications filed by the respondents on the basis of allotment made by Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and the dispute between two Societies have been finally resolved by the arbitrator vide its award dated 15/9/1997 (Ann.R.1/4) holding that Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is lawfully entitled to claim the land in question, which matter even was examined by the Lokayuct of the State vide order dated 14/11/2003 (Ann.R.1/6) holding that Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing society Ltd. is the lawful holder of the land and recommended that the possession of that land be restored to that society. It is submitted that in view of this, impleadment of Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti or its members was neither necessary nor warranted. Learned counsel further argued that officials of the Jaipur Development Authority were SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 4 hand in gloves with Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti and they are deliberately not taking any action against them. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that there are indeed two contradictory orders passed by the same Tribunal which have been placed on record by the petitioner. While the first order was passed in the case of Smt.Geeta Jaimini by the Tribunal on 30/10/2002 restraining the Jaipur Development Authority from interfering with her possession and another order was passed on reference application filed by the respondents on 7/3/2008 wherein, Jaipur Development Authority was directed to dispossess the members of Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti and restore possession of the plots in favour of the respondents on the basis of the allotments made by Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and then pass appropriate regularization order. Tribunal has given a finding against Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti holding that allotment made by this Society to its members is nothing but a mere waste piece of paper and that it has no legal title to hold that land. Those members have been held to be trespassers and therefore it has been ordered that they be dispossessed and the possession be handed over to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 5 justify non-impleadment of Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti and its members on the strength of the award passed by the arbitrator but when pointedly asked by the court, neither of the counsel was in a position to inform whether that award of the arbitrator was subjected to challenge any further by the Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti or any of its members. In any case, even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. When in a quasi judicial proceeding, if any adverse order is passed, which would have civil consequences against aggrieved person, it is always expected that such person is heard by such forum before that order is passed against him because execution of such order would have severe consequences for him. There is another aspect of the matter that the Tribunal has earlier passed a contradictory order and was not made aware of such contradictory order. The Jaipur Development Authority in this matter decided to challenge one order passed in favour of the respondents, who are members of the Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., apparently in whose favour, award of the arbitrator and recommendation made by the then Lokayuct has been made, but it has not explained why it did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the members of the Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti. They ought to justify their such conduct SBCWP No.11506/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. SBCWP No.11507/08. 6 before the Tribunal itself because this Court considers it proper to remand all these matters before the Tribunal for fresh hearing after directing impleadment of Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti through its Secretary. 5) In the result, all these three writ petitions are allowed. The impugned-order dated 7/3/2008 passed by the Tribunal is set-aside with the direction that Gopalpura Grah Nirman Samiti be impleaded as party-respondent. Tribunal shall hear and decide all these mattes afresh after hearing all the parties within a period of one year from the date copy of this order is produced before it. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil