HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 42/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9479/2005 1. Smt. Sudha Binju (Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heirs) 1/1. Aabi Binju S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Binju And Smt. Sudha Binju, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 22, Vivek Nagar, Station Road, Jaipur. 1/2.Smt. Prachi Sharma (Binju) W/o Shri Raj Sharma D/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Binju And Smt. Sudha Binju, Aged About 67 Years, R/o T-154, Ashiyana Utshav, Kalwar, Near Ramkutia, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chitranshu Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ishan Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/01/2025 1. The instant misc. application No.42/2024 has been submitted for recalling the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by this Court while deciding SB Civil Writ Petition No.9479/2005 submitted by the petitioner. (2 of 3) [WMAP-42/2024] 2. Counsel for the applicants submits that the validity and legality of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Jaipur Region Building) Regulations, 2000 (for short ‘the Regulations of 2000’) was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. Counsel submits that when the matter was listed before this Court on 05.01.2024, the counsel for the respondents apprised this Court that the aforesaid Regulations of 2000 were repealed after enactment of new Regulations i.e. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Jaipur Region Building) Regulations, 2020 (for short ‘the Regulations of 2020’). Counsel submits that when the earlier Regulations of 2000 have been repealed, then under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, threfore, the order dated 05.01.2024 is liable to be recalled. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the earlier writ petition was submitted by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that allow this writ petition and declare the impugned rules regarding set back as ultra vires and unreasonable. The respondents may kindly be restrained from using these laws with regard to the plots of less than 250 Sq. Mtr.” 5. By filing the aforesaid petition, the validity of the Regulations of 2000 was challenged. During pendency of that petition, the Regulations of 2000 were repealed and new (3 of 3) [WMAP-42/2024] Regulations of 2020 were enforced, hence, under these circumstances, the writ petition was rendered dismissed as infructuous granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the new Regulations of 2020, if she so aggrieved. 6. There is no question of grant of compensation or recall of order dated 05.01.2024, as no orders have been passed on merits and demerits. By passing the said order, the petition was rendered as infructuous under the changed circumstances, hence, this Court finds no ground to recall the order dated 05.01.2024. 7. Accordingly, the instant misc. application stands rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/2