[2025:RJ-JP:18654] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 270/2023 Ramswaroop Alias Lalaram S/o Shri Ranjeet, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vilage Shri Krishnapura, Tahsil Sanganer, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kaushalya Kumari W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Chhabarwal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Patel Colony, Navalgarh Road, Sikar (Rajasthan) 2. Ram Prasad Meena S/o Chauthu Ram, R/o Village Shri Krishnapura, Tahsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Smt. Manpuli W/o Chauthu, R/o Village Shri Krishnapura, Tahsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Amit Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal, R/o H. No. 225, Vinoba Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 5. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran Jaipur, Address Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Minakshi Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajveer Gurjar, Adv. for Mr. Vikas Saini, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 05 /05/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I Headquarter-Sanganer (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 289/2023 titled as "Kaushalya Kumari Vs. Ramswaroop & Ors.", whereby the trial [2025:RJ-JP:18654] (2 of 4) [CR-270/2023] Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC read with Section 99 JDA Act, 1982 filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for declaration as well as mandatory and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC read with Section 99 JDA Act, 1982 but the trial Court vide its order dated 05.10.2023 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that by way of the present suit plaintiff wanted to declare the free-hold patta issued by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as null and void. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that as per provisions of Rule 34 of Rajasthan Urban Areas (Permission for use of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes and Allotment) Rules, 2012 if allotment or lease deed have been obtained by way of misrepresentation, on the basis of fraudulent documents, in collusion and in contravention of law, then Jaipur Development Authority had right to revoke the said allotment/lease deed after hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per Section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, no civil court shall take cognizance of any matter which is required to be or may be decided by the authority, Executive Committee, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and such matter can be challenged before the Tribunal and not before the civil Court, but the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:18654] (3 of 4) [CR-270/2023] defendant. So, the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the suit filed by plaintiff be dismissed being barred by law. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed the reliance upon the following judgments-: 1. Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla in civil revision petition No. 57/2013 decided on 04.02.2014. 2. Dhulabhai and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in 1969 AIR 78, 1986 SCR (3) 662 decided on 05.04.1968. 3. M/s Om Kothari Family Trust and Ors. Vs. The Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 565/1995 decided on 04.09.1995. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because the trial Court while deciding the application clearly mentioned that present suit filed by the plaintiff was with regard to enforcement of the civil right. So, said suit was maintainable before the trial Court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the present suit filed by the plaintiff was regarding the free-hold patta which was obtained with connivance with the Jaipur Development Authority and plaintiff sought the relief with regard to declare the said patta as illegal [2025:RJ-JP:18654] (4 of 4) [CR-270/2023] and void as against the plaintiff. In my considered opinion, said patta was issued by Jaipur Development Authority so the question as to whether the patta was issued as per law or not would be decided by the Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal and civil Court had no right to adjudicate the suit. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/92