[2026:RJ-JP:4421] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1353/2026 Babu Lal Saini S/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal Saini, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 97, Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Near Tejaji Temple, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur Presently- Saini Krishi Farm, Sarna Chaud, Bhudharpura, Jhotwara Jaipur K Jaipur - (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus The Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 30/01/2026 1. Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal, Advocate, who usually appears for JDA, is directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondent. Thus, notice need not to be issued to the respondent, and service is treated complete. Copy of the writ petition was provided to learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard on merits. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, back in 2021, the petitioner had filed a revenue suit No.79/2021, wherein the JDA was impleaded as one of the defendants, before the [2026:RJ-JP:4421] (2 of 4) [CW-1353/2026] learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I ('learned SDO'), for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the learned SDO granted a temporary injunction vide order dated 07.12.2021, directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. 5. He further submits that in violation of the said injunction order dated 07.12.2021, the JDA issued notice(s) dated 11.12.2025 bearing Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 ('JDA Act, 1982'), directing therein to remove alleged encroachments over the land bearing Khasra Nos.2126 and 2120. 6. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No.1263/2025 along with a stay application before the learned Appellate Tribunal and prayed that no coercive step may be initiated pursuant to the abovementioned notice(s). The learned Appellate Tribunal rejected the stay application while observing that there is already an interim stay in operation vide order dated 07.12.2021, passed by the learned SDO, therefore no further interim order is required at this stage, as the petitioner will always be at liberty to move a contempt application in case of violation of the stay order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned Revenue Court i.e. SDO. He further submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order and prayed that the present writ petition may be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order nowhere affects the rights of the petitioner, as the petitioner's rights are already protected and further he is free [2026:RJ-JP:4421] (3 of 4) [CW-1353/2026] to make his submissions at the time of the hearing of the appeal or stay application before the learned Appellate Tribunal; he therefore supports the impugned order and prays that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. Heard the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Appellate Tribunal has declined the prayer for interim relief, while taking into consideration the interim stay order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned SDO in revenue suit No.79/2021 without appreciating the fact that the impugned notice(s) were issued during the subsistence of the aforesaid interim stay order and the veracity of the aforesaid notices is yet to be tested and adjudicated upon by the learned Appellate Tribunal in the said appeal. Therefore, if during the pendency of the said appeal, any coercive action is initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the notice(s) dated 11.12.2025, that too without appreciating the grounds pleaded in the memo of appeal or the averments made in the temporary injunction application, including the pre-requisite three-pronged test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury) for deciding a stay application or grant of interim stay, the same will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA, for fresh adjudication. [2026:RJ-JP:4421] (4 of 4) [CW-1353/2026] 11. Learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA is directed to re-decide the pending temporary injunction application within a period of 15 days from the next date fixed therein. 12. Till the decision of the temporary injunction application in the said appeal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice(s) dated 11.12.2025. However, it is made clear that the learned Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the temporary injunction application, will consider the case on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and documents available on record, strictly in accordance with law, and will not be influenced by the order passed by this Court under this writ jurisdiction. 13. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of. 14. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV/RAHUL /34