1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2659/2001 Jaipur Development Authority Versus The State of Rajasthan and others DATE OF ORDER --- April 19,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Mahendra Goyal, for the petitioner Mr.U.N.Bhandari, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Singh, for the respondent BY THE COURT (1) This writ petition has been filed by the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.) against the order of the Revenue Minister dated 22.6.1998 (Anx.3) passed under section 85-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act of 1956') whereby the order of cancellation of allotment of land dated 26.11.1997 to the respondent No.3 Shri Pashupati Goshala has been set aside and while maintaining the allotment order dated 11.9.1989, the period of lease has been extended for a further period of ten years. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that Shri Pashupati Goshala, Sarna Doongar, Tehsil Jaipur, (respondent No.3), was allotted land measuring 11 Acres in Khasra No.133 vide order dated 11.9.1989 (Anx.1). Subsequently, the allotment was cancelled on receipt of the report of the Collector, vide order dated 26.11.1997. Against the said order, the respondent No.3 filed a review petition under section 85 of the Act of 1956 and in the said review petition, the Revenue Minister after hearing the parties, reviewed the cancellation order dated 26.11.1997 on the ground that no terms and conditions of the order of allotment had been violated by the allottee and ultimately, vide order dated 2 22.6.1998, while setting aside the cancellation order dated 26.11.1997, the allotment order dated 11.9.1989 was maintained and the lease was further extended for a period of ten years. The Revenue Minister has also considered the fact that as per the report of the Tesildar, Jaipur and the District Collector, Jaipur, the boundary wall, Patol and two rooms have been constructed on the land allotted to the respondent No.3 and 14 Cows and 7 Calves were found on the site. The aforesaid order dated 26.2.1998 has been challenged by the JDA in the present writ petition. (3) The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply to the writ petition wherein it is stated that the order dated 22.6.1998 had been challenged after three years i.e. in the year 2001 and further that as per Sec.90(3) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (in short `the Act of 1982'), if there is a dispute between the J.D.A. and the State Government, the matter shall be decided by the State Government and its decision shall be final. It was also stated in the reply that the J.D.A. was not a necessary party before the Revenue Minister and that the Revenue Minister rightly passed the order dated 22.6.1998. (4) Submission of counsel for the JDA is that the land was placed at the disposal of the JDA and it was allotted vide order dated 11.9.1989 to the respondent No.3 after seeking no objection from the JDA. After cancellation of the allotment, the land has been again entered as Sewai Chak vide Mutation No.180 dated 26.2.1998 and vide Mutation No.181 dated 5.3.1998, the land was recorded in the name of the petitioner. Counsel for the JDA further submits that the petitioner does not challenge the authority of the State Government, of allotment and review but the challenge is limited to the manner in which the cancellation order dated 26.11.1997 has been set aside by the Revenue Minister and further renewal was granted without hearing the JDA which was a necessary party in the proceedings before the Revenue Minister. The Revenue Minister ought to have ordered for arraying JDA as party 3 respondent in the review petition and then ought to have proceeded to decide the review petition. Further submission of Mr.Goyal, appearing for the JDA, is that after vesting of the land in the JDA, allotment of land could only be made in consultation with the JDA. (5) Counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that as per Sec. 102-A of the Act of 1956, the land set apart under section 92 may be placed at the disposal of the JDA but the condition of restriction can be imposed by the State Government. Otherwise also, there is no restriction either in the Act of 1956 or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land to Goshalas) Rules, 1957 (in short `the Rules of 1957') for allotment of land to Goshala and even if the JDA was objecting to the renewal of allotment, then, the remedy available was under section 90(3) of the Act of 1982 to raise the dispute before the State Government but the JDA had no right to file the writ petition against the State Government without first approaching the State Government. Counsel for the respondent No.3 further submits that the JDA has to act in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government and it is bound to comply with Sec. 90 (2) of the Act of 1982. Counsel also submits that fresh renewal application of the respondent No.3 is pending and as per Appendix-A, Clause 2 of Part-I of the lease, the lessee is entitled for renewal of allotment of land for a futher period of ten years at his option and the respondent No.3 has submitted application for renewal before the State Government. Counsel for the respondent No.3 then stated that as per the official record of the Collector, Jaipur, in June, 2006, there were in all 437 Cows and Calves in Shri Pashupati Goshala, respondent No.3. (6) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. (7) Before proceeding further, I would like to reproduce Sec.90 of the Act of 1982. The same is as under: 4 “90. Control by State Government – (1) The Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties under this Act in accordance with the policy framed and the guidelines laid down, from time to time, by the State Government for development of the areas in the Jaipur Region. (2) The Authority shall be bound to comply with such directions which may be issued, from time to time, by the State Government for efficient administration of this Act. (3) If, in connection with the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the Authority under this Act, any dispute, arises between the Authority and the State Government, the matter shall be decided by the State Government and its decision shall be final.” (emphasis supplied) (8) In case the JDA wanted to object to the setting aside the order of cancellation of allotment of land, dated 26.11.1997, or renewal of the allotment of land in favour of the respondent No.3, then the remedy was available to it to approach the State Government under section 90(3) of the Act of 1982. The present writ petition has been filed by the JDA against the order of the Revenue Minister, challenging the manner in which the renewal of the allotment of land for a period of ten years has been granted, without first approaching the State Government under section 90(3) of the Act of 1982. (9) In view of the above, the State Government has rightly allotted land to the Goshala under the Rules of 1957 and has further granted renewal of the same for a period of ten years. The JDA was not a necessary party in the proceedings before the Revenue Minister. The submission of counsel for the petitioner with regard to the manner in which the State Government has restored the allotment and further granted renewal, has no force whereas submission of counsel for the respondents has force. 5 (10) Since in this particular case, further renewal application of the respondent No.3 is pending before the State Government, the JDA is at liberty to raise objection, if so desired. (11) The writ petition is dismissed. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल