[2025:RJ-JP:41008] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 123/2025 1. M/s Shivam Premises Pvt. Ltd., Through Director Shri Harcharan Lekar S/o Shri Roshan Lal Lekar, Aged About 69 Years, Registered Office Roshan Tower, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 2. M/s S F Properties Private Limited, Through Director Shri Shri Harcharan Lekar S/o Shri Roshan Lal Lekar, Registered Office, Roshan Tower, Ajmer Road, Jaipur . 3. M/s Balaji Premises Private Limited, Through Director Shri Harcharan Lekar S/o Shri Roshan Lal Lekar, Registered Office, Roshan Tower, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 4. M/s Ganesham Premises Private Limited, Through Director Shri Harcharan Lekar S/o Shri Roshan Lal Lekar, Registered Office Roshan Tower, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Roshan Residency Apartment Residents Welfare Society, Through President Shri M.g. Maheshwari S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Ji, Aged 65 Years, Resident Of Roshan Residency, Sahakar Marg, In Front Of Las Vegas Hotel Jaipur 2. M/s Sand Dune Construction Private Limited, Through Director Shri Ravi Mathur S/o Shri R.b. Mathur, Registered Office D-29, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur And Branch Office, Karan Heights , Janpath Road, Behind Vidhan Sabha , Lalkothi, Jaipur. 3. 4. The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-3, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harish Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Manan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS [2025:RJ-JP:41008] (2 of 5) [CR-123/2025] Judgment / Order 09/10/2025 ;kph&izfroknhx.k dze 1 yxk;r 4 dh vksj ls ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fo}ku vij flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] dze&4] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&126@2025 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-03-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls ;kph&izfroknhx.k dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k rFkk v;kphx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA foi{kh dze&1@oknh dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) vkKkid o fu"ks/kkRed vkKk dk okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 5 }kjk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k tk jgk gS tks izfroknh dze&6 o 7 }kjk Lohd`r uD'ks o Hkou mifof/k ds foijhr gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k fd izfroknh dze&6 o 7 t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk tks uD'kk Lohd`r fd;k x;k gS] og Hkh fof/k&lEer ugha gS] lEifRr ds vUrfjr djus ds fo:) Hkh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk pkghA izfroknh dze&1 yxk;r 4 dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- dk vkosnu izLrqr dj t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 dh /kkjk&99 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ekeyk flfoy U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ugha gksuk crkrs gq, okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k] fdUrq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k ds ek/;e ls mDr vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k] ftlds fo:) ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk is'k dh x;h gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dk fuosnu gS fd okn esa tks vuqrks"k pkgs x;s gSa] os t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] vihyh; vf/kdj.k dks iznRr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA [2025:RJ-JP:41008] (3 of 5) [CR-123/2025] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 dh /kkjk&99 ds izko/kku fuEukuqlkj gSa& "99- Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, 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 Commissioner, Functional Board, any body thereof, the Tribunal or the State Government, under this Act. (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, an order passed or a direction given by the State Government to the Authority or an order passed or notice issued by the Authority under this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceeding. fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&izfroknh dze&1 yxk;r 4 dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"VkUr Rohit Singh vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla 2014 RLW(Raj)1367 izLrqr fd;k ftldk iSjk la[;k 6 o 7 lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS& "6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties and to the impugned order as well as the copy of the plaint produced on the record, it transpires that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking permanent injunction for restraining him from carrying out the construction in violation of the building bye-laws. In the entire body of the plaint, it has been alleged by the respondent- plaintiff, that the petitioner-defendant has violated the parameters fixed by the Authority for carrying out the construction and hence the construction carried out by him is the unauthorised construction. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is for the Authority to see that the erection or re- erection of buildings and projections, material alteration etc. are being carried out as per the bye- laws specified by the Authority. It is also provided in [2025:RJ-JP:41008] (4 of 5) [CR-123/2025] Section 17 of the said Act that no person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur region without the permission of the Authority. The Authority is also empowered to revoke or modify such permission or development and impose penalty for unauthorised development, which are not in conformity with the approved plan, and also may require removal of unauthorised developments and also to stop unauthorised developments, as per the provisions contained in Chapter-IV of the said Act. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff having alleged that the petitioner was carrying out construction in violation of the building bye-laws, it is for the Authority to decide such matter and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Civil Court cannot take cognizance of such matter which is required to be decided by the authority, in view of the bar contained in Section 99 of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the court is of the opinion that the trial court has committed an error in not rejecting the plaint of the respondent-plaintiff as from the statements made in the plaint, it appears that the suit is barred u/s 99 of the said Act. The impugned order passed by the trial court being erroneous, the same deserves to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the plaint of the respondent-plaintiff is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. However, it is clarified that it will be open for the respondent-plaintiff to approach the appropriate authority under the Act for the alleged grievance. t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 dh /kkjk&99 rFkk Rohit Singh vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla (Supra) esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds [2025:RJ-JP:41008] (5 of 5) [CR-123/2025] vuqlkj ;g izdj.k vuU; :i ls t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] vihyh; vf/kdj.k ds }kjk lquokbZ ;ksX; gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gS] ysfdu mlds ckotwn fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% ;kph&izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq, vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 29-03-2025 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;kph&izfroknh dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj djrs gq, oknh&izR;FkhZ dk okn {ks=kf/kdkj ls oftZr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /29