[2026:RJ-JP:3980] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.27/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8905/2020 Veenu Developers Private Limited, Registered Office E-12, Mauji Colony Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory Shri Govind Narayan Purohit Son Of Shri Sukh Raj Purohit At Present Director Shri Vishwas Jain Son Of Late Shri Pokharmal Jain. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Commissioner Indra Circle, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-10, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranveer Singh Mehta (Through Video Conferencing) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/01/2026 1. Application No.59/2026 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 3. By way of filing the instant review petition, a prayer has been made for recalling of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8905/2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid writ petition, a challenge was led to the letter/order [2026:RJ-JP:3980] (2 of 2) [WRW-27/2026] dated 09.07.2020 passed by the respondents with a prayer to issue directions to the authorities to give necessary permission/approval for construction of a Resort or other use, permissible within ecological zone, of the subject land. Learned counsel submits that an objection was taken by the respondents in their reply with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that looking to the aforesaid technical objection, taken by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority, he instructed his associate counsel who appeared on the said date to withdraw the aforesaid writ petition seeking liberty to avail alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the law. Learned counsel submits that the associate counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not brought this fact into the notice of this Court and the case was dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel submits that, in case, liberty is not granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, then the petitioner would be remediless. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8905/2020, stands modified. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternative remedy available to him under the law. 8. In view of the above, the review petition stands disposed of. 9. This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/23