[2026:RJ-JP:5551] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 912/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11120/2020 Rakesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Plot No. 129-A, Krishna Vihar Colony, Gopalpura Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vaibhav Galriya Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Ms. Anandhi, The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ---Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, present in person. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanay Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 04/02/2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 04/02/2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 06/02/2026 1. The petitioner, Rakesh Sharma, has preferred the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the non-compliance of judgment dated 05.07.2013, 09.11.2016, [2026:RJ-JP:5313] (2 of 6) [CCP-912/2024] 22.02.2024, read with orders dated 08.04.2024 and 03.04.2024. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the writ petition bearing No.11120/2020 titled as Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 24.09.2020, the Hon’ble Court observed that the rights of the applicant and other similarly situated persons are protected by the operative portion of the judgment dated 09.11.2016, which has attained finality. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that JDA is liable to make allotment of plot in Prithviraj Nagar Scheme (Gokul Nagar Residency) to the applicant in light of specific direction of judgment dated 05.07.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2740/2006 titled as Sugan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, however, despite submitting several representations before the officials of the Authority, no order was passed, thus, the respondents’ official have willfully violated the order, therefore, they may be directed to carry out the directions of judgment dated 05.07.2013. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the order passed in Sugan Singh’s Case is applicable, and the respondents were bound to allot the plot to the petitioner in the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Girish Mittal Vs. Parvati V. Sundaram, dated 26.04.2019, passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 by the Apex Court. It is contended that the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter held that a contempt petition is maintainable by a person other than the party if the direction issued by the court is of a nature that violates the directions. It is argued that the order passed in the case of Sugan Singh applies to the petitioner also, and the petitioner is entitled [2026:RJ-JP:5313] (3 of 6) [CCP-912/2024] to the allotment of a plot with parity to the persons who were also litigants in the matter of Sugan Singh. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the contempt petition is misconceived. The petitioner was not a party in the case of Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) and the directions in the aforesaid case were limited to the extent of the persons who remained successful in the draw of the lottery for the allotment of plots in Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. It is contended that the petitioner was not allotted any plot in Prithviraj Nagar Phase I; hence, the judgment applies only to persons who were successful in the lottery draw and also deposited the amount pursuant to the demand letter. It is also contended that the petitioner’s writ petition No.15724/2013 was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2016 with the direction that the outcome of the appeals pending in the Division Bench would govern the present writ petition, if the petitioners are similarly placed. It was also observed in that case that the petitioner failed to show a right to the allotment of plots in the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme, as mere registration does not confer such a right. 6. The Court also observed that “however, if the JDA has decided for allotment of plots to similarly situated candidates, then, definitely, parity can be claimed” and further the Division Bench's judgment would govern the petitioners if they are equally situated and the appeals are allowed. 7. It is also contended that in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.733/2016, the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge to reconsider the whole issue afresh after giving a chance to [2026:RJ-JP:5313] (4 of 6) [CCP-912/2024] all the parties to file reply/clarification/review application as the case may be. It is also contended that JDA filed its clarification application bearing No.130/2015 concerning the order dated 05.07.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2740/2006- Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and vide order dated 22.02.2024, the Court dismissed the Misc. application after recording that the order dated 05.07.2013 has been complied with in toto. The JDA counsel also stated at the Bar that the Authority has complied with the order dated 05.07.2013 in toto. Thus, the petitioner's case is entirely distinguishable & not covered by the Judgment of Sugan Singh (Supra). 8. It is further argued that in the vide order dated 24.09.2024, the petitioner’s representation for claiming parity with the judgment passed in Sugan Singh’s case was duly considered. His claim for allotment of a plot in the Prithviraj Nagar Phase I Scheme was dismissed, as the petitioner did not apply for allotment of a plot in the Scheme; therefore, the respondents have not committed any contempt nor violated any order passed by this Court. 9. Heard and perused the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2740/2006-Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the directions in the said case pertained to allottees who applied for the Prithviraj Nagar Phase-I Scheme and succeeded, and who received a demand notice. The petitioner cannot claim parity based on the judgment passed in the aforesaid case for the reasons that firstly, the petitioner was not a party to the case. Secondly, the directions rendered in the abovementioned case [2026:RJ-JP:5313] (5 of 6) [CCP-912/2024] apply only to the persons who applied for allotment of plots in the Prithviraj Nagar Phase I Scheme and succeeded. 11. In the petition filed by the petitioner bearing No.15724/2013, it was observed by the Court vide its order dated 09.11.2016 that the petitioner has failed to obtain the right of allotment of plots in Prithviraj Nagar Scheme and mere registration does not give the right of allotment of a plot. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if the JDA has decided to allot plots to similarly situated candidates, then definitely parity can be claimed. 12. The petitioner has failed to show that the persons who registered themselves in the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme and could not succeed were allotted plots in the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. 13. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Girish Mittal Vs. Parvati V. Sundaram (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid judgment, it was applicable for a group of persons who were not party to the case, however, the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) is relevant only for the group of successful persons who after applying for allotment for plots in Prithviraj Nagar Scheme, succeeded, therefore, claim of parity of the petitioner with Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) is also misconceived. Further, there were no such directions in the SB Civil writ petitions directing the respondents to allot the plot to the petitioner in Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. 14. The respondents, after hearing the petitioner, have dismissed the petitioner’s claim for allotment of a plot in the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme. [2026:RJ-JP:5313] (6 of 6) [CCP-912/2024] 15. Upshot to the above discussion, no contempt is made out against the respondents; therefore, the contempt petition is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav /86 115