[2025:RJ-JP:46541] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6409/2012 Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kedia Builders Proprietorship Firm, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sushil Kedia Son Of Shri D.p. Kedia, 10, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur 2. The Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. with Mr. Dharma Ram, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/11/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner-JDA submits that impugned order dated 27.02.2008 issued by learned Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur is not sustainable in the eye of law as same was passed in the light of circular dated 06.12.2001 whereby some guidelines were issued by the State Government. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority & Ors Vs. Vijay Kumar Data & Anr. reported in (2011) 12 SCC 94, has declared the aforesaid circular contrary to the law and restrained the State Government as well as the appellant-JDA from taking any action in future on the basis of the said circular. Counsel submits that in view of observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Data (supra), impugned order [2025:RJ-JP:46541] (2 of 3) [CW-6409/2012] passed by learned Appellate Tribunal on 27.02.2008 is not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that by the impugned order dated 27.02.2008, simply directions were issued by the learned Appellate Tribunal to the petitioner-JDA to consider the representation, if any filed, by the respondent No.1 within a period of fifteen days. It is submitted that in pursuance of directions issued by the learned Appellate Tribunal, a representation was filed by the respondent No.1 before the petitioner-JDA. Counsel submits that when the representation submitted by respondent No.1 was not decided by the petitioner- JDA, a letter dated 16.05.2023 was issued to the respondent No.1 to file a fresh representation in pursuance of order dated 27.02.2008. In pursuance of said letter issued by the petitioner- JDA, respondent No.1 again submitted a representation on 23.05.2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.06.2023 by the petitioner-JDA. Counsel submits that after deciding the representation of the respondent No.1, the petitioner-JDA issued a notice dated 14.06.2023 under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Act, 1982 with the direction to remove the alleged encroachment from the property in dispute. Against the order dated 02.06.2023 as well as notice dated 14.06.2023, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2025. Counsel submits that against the order of dismissal of appeal dated 03.09.2025, a separate writ petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15400/2025 has been preferred by respondent No.1, which is pending consideration. [2025:RJ-JP:46541] (3 of 3) [CW-6409/2012] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Data (supra) has specifically held in para 57 of the judgment that “since we have found that the so-called policy decision contained in the Letter dated 06.12.2001 is contrary to the law declared by this Court, the State Government and the appellant are restrained from taking any action in future on the basis of the said letter.” In view of above factual matrix, I am of the considered view that since order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal has already been complied with and representation filed by the respondent No.1 has also been decided, against which appeal has also been dismissed and presently writ petition is pending against the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent No.1, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner- JDA against the order dated 27.02.2008 has rendered infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the dismissal of the writ petition being infructuous will have no effect on the subsequent proceedings conducted by the JDA, petitioner herein. It is also made clear that in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Data (supra), the petitioner-JDA will not take the cognizance of the circular / letter dated 06.12.2001. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /77