[2025:RJ-JP:47711] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7832/2021 Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its Secretary Vijay Singh S/o Shri Vishram Singh, Plot No. A-157, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shankar Lal Bairwa S/o Suwalal Bairwa, Resident Of 129, Avadhpuri, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Shivram Choudhary S/o Shri Anandi Lal Choudhary, Resident Of A-80, Bhairav Nagar, Near Sumer Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Vijay Singh Kulhari S/o Not Known, Resident Of 73, Surya Nagar- East, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Dharma Ram Ms. Nandini Mirdha for Mr. Amit Kuri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dater 04.03.2021 passed by Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur whereby, ad interim injunction has been denied to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Vikas Samiti of Rajeev Gandhi Nagar Awasiya Yojna. which has been chalked out by the private developers over land [2025:RJ-JP:47711] (2 of 5) [CW-7832/2021] bearing Khasra Nos.888, 954, 959, 983, 985, 986, 1014, 1027, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 984/1221, 903 to 908, 912, 968, 970 to 972, 950, 953, 956 to 958, 1005 to 1007, 1009, 1010, 1019, 1020, 1025, 1036, 904/1155, 905/1156, 906/1157, 1099/1222, 951, 952, 1052 to 1056, 1059, 1060, 501/1177, 909, 900, 911, 915 to 917, 955, 960, 977 to 981, 1015, 1026, 1029, 1031, 1021, 1082 to 1087, 1089 to 1092. It is submitted that the aforesaid land was surrendered by the Khatedhars of the land under Section 90(B)(3) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 with intent to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, and after following the process, the order dated 13.12.2002 was passed by the competent authority whereby, total 18.94 hectare land falling in aforesaid Khasra number was resumed by the competent authority under Section 63(11) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Section 90(B)(3) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as well as Section 54 of Jaipur Development Authority Act. 3. Despite the order dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Competent Authority, till this date, no action has been taken by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority to approve the plans of residential scheme Rajeev Gandhi Nagar Awasiya Yojna submitted by the developer, and in the meanwhile, encroachments are being made over the said land. It is submitted that once the land has been resumed under Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, it is bounden duty of Jaipur Development Authority to protect the land until and unless, further proceedings are carried out and necessary orders are passed in favour of developer. It is submitted that feeling [2025:RJ-JP:47711] (3 of 5) [CW-7832/2021] aggrieved by the encroachment, reference petition was filed by the petitioner before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur however, the application for grant of interim injunction has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal with the finding that details and particulars of the encroachers over the land have not been pointed out, and it has also been observed that since the scheme has not been approved as yet, therefore, no injunction as sought by the petitioner can be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Tribunal is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner in the manner that by the time, the scheme is approved and further orders will be passed, encroachments would frustrate the scheme and then no proper land as per the scheme would be available to the members of petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the Jaipur Development Authority opposed the writ petition and defends the impugned order and submitted that the right of the petitioner would accrue only when, the scheme proposed by the developer is approved by the Jaipur Development Authority and prior to that, the petitioner has got no right whatsoever to seek any injunction. 6. Learned counsel for the private-respondents submits that they have been unnecessarily impleaded as parties to the petition whereas they have got nothing to do with any alleged encroachment over the land in question. 7. Heard and considered. 8. Bare perusal of order dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Competent Authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 [2025:RJ-JP:47711] (4 of 5) [CW-7832/2021] would reveal that the land has been resumed in favour of Jaipur Development Authority. Reference of Section 54 of Jaipur Development Authority Act, has also been given, which pre- supposes that land still vests in Jaipur Development Authority being custodian of the land in view of provisions of the Act and therefore, it is legal obligation of JDA to protect the said land from encroachment of any kind whatsoever. The power to regulate the resumed land necessarily carries with it duty to ensure its protection and preservation. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner arising from the fear of encroachment cannot be said to be unfounded or misconceived, for the reason that after surrendering land under Section 90(B)(3) of the Act of 1956, the developers have got preferential right of re-allotment and to develop the land for non-agricultural purposes. 9. Under these circumstances, until further orders are passed by the authorities of JDA over the scheme by the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the land from any kind of encroachment. 10. Thus, at this stage, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to JDA to ensure that there should be no encroachment whatsoever over the land in question; for that inspection of land in question shall be carried out by Zonal Committee of JDA and after making inspection, if any person is found to be in encroachment, same should also be removed after following the due procedure of law. 11. Since, the petition is directed only against the interim order, therefore, the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate [2025:RJ-JP:47711] (5 of 5) [CW-7832/2021] Tribunal is also directed to finally decide the reference petition No. 90/2021 pending before it expeditiously. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/30