RAJ KUMAR GOYAL SON OF SHRI BHAGIRATH PRASAD v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SAW/208/2025 · 2025-04-03
Anand Sharma, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7479 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7479 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:14970-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 208/2025
1. Raj Kumar Goyal Son Of Shri Bhagirath Prasad, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Deleted Since Deceased) Through Lrs- 1/1. Smt. Shakuntala Goyal W/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 59 Years, (Already On Record As Petitioner No. 2) 1/2. Jay Vardhan Agarwal, Aged About 36 Years, S/o Late Shri Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal 1/3. Devendra Goyal, Aged About 34 Years, S/o Late Shri Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal 1/4. Payal Goyal D/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 26 Years, All Are R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Smt. Shakuntala Goyal W/o Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Secretary.
2. Dy. Commissioner, Zone- Prn (South), Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain with Mr. Roshan Vishvakarma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Ram & Ms. Nandini Mirdha Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order
[2025:RJ-JP:14970-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-208/2025] 03/04/2025
1. Heard.
2. Though number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are not impressed in view of the provisions contained under the JDA Act which provides for alternative remedy.
3. However, taking into consideration that the appellants was enjoying interim order since 2018, we are inclined to protect the appellants for a further period of one month. The appellants would be at liberty to approach the Tribunal within a period of one month from today. We leave the matter to be decided on its own merits by the Tribunal and pass appropriate orders.
4. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Neeru/11