[2025:RJ-JP:38742] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14410/2025 1. Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Atal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Panch Vihar Colony, Jodla-Badharna Road, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Sangeeta Devi, W/o Shri Ramchandra Verma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Panch Vihar Colony, Jodla-Badharna Road, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Mohini Devi, W/o Shri Om Prakash Machawal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Panch Vihar Colony, Jodla-Badharna Road, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Petitioner No. 3 Represented Through Her Duly Constituted Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Rajendra Kumar Prasoya S/o Shri Sederam, R/o Panch Vihar Colony, Jodla, Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority (Jda), Through Its Commissioner, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur. 4. Public Works Department (Pwd), Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer (Roads), Jaipur, And/or The Executive Engineer, Pwd Roads Division, Jaipur. 5. Executive Engineer / Officer In-Charge, Jodla-Badharna Road Development Project, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 20/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners resides in Panch Vihar Colony, as reflected from the [2025:RJ-JP:38742] (2 of 3) [CW-14410/2025] site plan annexed at “page 31” of the petition. It is submitted that due to the proposed widening of the road in question, petitioners apprehends a threat of demolition. Nevertheless, it is admitted that as on date, no written notice is served by the JDA authority upon the petitioners or similarly situated persons as that of the petitioners. 2. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295/2022 and has submitted that no demolition can be made without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 3. Additionally, learned counsel is unable to refute qua availability of alternate remedy under Section 83(8)(b) of the JDA Act. 4. Having heard and considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon analysis of the Section 83(8)(b) of the JDA Act, this Court is of the opinion that an alternate efficacious remedy is available with the petitioners to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact i.e., qua road widening and alleged encroachment. Further, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel pertains to distinct factual matrix, therefore, same is no applicable to the instant matter. The relevant extract of the Section 83 of JDA Act is reproduced herein below:- “Section 83(8)(b) of the JDA Act clearly states that "any person aggrieved by a threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting their rights may refer the dispute to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or injury." [2025:RJ-JP:38742] (3 of 3) [CW-14410/2025] 5. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law to seek redressal of their grievance. Further, if the petitioners files any reference with the learned JDA authority within seven days, the same shall be adjudicated, expeditiously. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /12