[2026:RJ-JP:11981] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3749/2026 Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Kailash Narayan Saini, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 800/2 Shivaji Nagar, Bais Godam, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Address Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Commissioner Zone 7. 2. Mr. Krishna Murari Sharda, Son Of Late Mr. Rameshwar Lal Sharda, Resident Of 177, Barkat Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Mr. Krishna Somani Son Of Mr. Shanwar Lal Somani, Resident Of A-66 Mahesh Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Mr. Shiv Kumar Agrawal, Son Of Late Mr. Banwari Lal Agrawal, Resident Of D-131, Ambawadi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Mr. Kishan Singh Son Of Mr. Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Mr. Girdhari Lal Verma, Son Of Mr. Dularam Verma, Resident Of 1/1297, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 7. Mr. Harish Yadav, Son Of Late Mr. Vishnu Gopal Yadav, Resident Of Gram Haripura, Zila Jaipur, Rajasthan And Another Address, Plot No. 114, Sector 3, Chitrakoot Yojana, Beed Khatipura, Jaipur. 8. Mrs. Sandhya Devi Wife Of Mr. Vishnu Gopal Yadav, Resident Of Gram Haripura, Zila Jaipur, Rajasthan, And Another Address Plot No. 224, Sector 1, Chitrakoot Yojana, Beed Khatipura, Jaipur. 9. Mr. Ramvatvar Kaloya, Son Of Late Mr. Ramniwas Kaloya, Resident Of 86-A, Govind Nagar, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 10. Mr. Saurabh Awasthi, Son Of Mr. Om Prakash Awasthi, R/o 26, Sultan Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Gopalpura, Jaipur Raj. 11. Sh. Jodha Ram Yadav S/o Late Sh. Sundar Lal Yadav, R/o Village Beed Khatipura, Sector 1, Chitrakoot, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (2 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] Rajasthan. 12. Sh. Naresh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Sh. Vishnu Gopal Yadav, R/o Village Heerapura, District Jaipur Rajasthan Other Address Plot No. 389, Sector 3, Chitrakoot Scheme, Beed Kharipura, Jaipur. 13. Sh. Ajeet Singh Yadav S/o Late Sh. Sheduram Yadav And Vikram Singh Yadav S/o Late Sh. Sheduram Yadav, R/o Plot No. A-1, Village Beed Khatipura Sector 1 Chitrakoot, Jaipur 14. Sh. Lal Bhadur Yadav S/o Late Sh. Vishnu Gopal Yadav, R/o Village Heerapura, Jaipur Rajasthan And Other Address Plot No. 295A, 296, 296A, 297, Sector 1 Chitrakoot Scheme, Beed Khatipura Jaipur 15. Smt. Vimla Devi Agarwal W/o Pralad Kumar Agaral, R/o 103, Shiva Residency, Shiv Marg Banipark, Jaipur. 16. Sh. Rajpal Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Vishnu, R/o Village Hirapura, District Jaipur, Raj. 17. Smt. Vinod Kanwar W/o Shri Dasharat Singh, R/o 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vashali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. 18. Smt. Laxmi Kanwar W/o Shri Kishan Singh Shekhawat, R/o 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vashali Nagar, Jaipur. 19. Shri Shyam Pratap Singh S/o Shri Dasharat Singh, R/o 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vashali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. 20. Shri Brijraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Dasharat Singh, Rr/o 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vashali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. 21. Smt. Santosh Somani W/o Shri Saral Kumar Somani, R/o Mahesh Nagar Vistar, Kajor Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Raj. And Other Address Plot No. 337, Sector-1, Chitrakoot Yojana, Bid Khatipura, Jaipur, Raj. 22. Smt. Achala Tripathi W/o Shri Karun Tripathi, Rr/o Dental Hospital, Shanghi Farm, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj. 23. Shri Govind Somani W/o Shri Krishn Somani, R/o A-66, Mahesh Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Raj. 24. Shri Dasharat Singh, R/o 197, Moti Nagar, Road No. 7, Vashali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. 25. Shri Ram Pratap Singh, R/o Village Dhinoi, Tehsil - Chomu, District - Jaipur, Raj. [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (3 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] 26. Kartar Singh, Administrator Office Specific Accounts Investigator, Shahkari Samiti, Jaipur Rural, Liquidator - Hatroi Gardhi Grah Nirman Shahkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yellop Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/03/2026 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, District Jaipur (for short, ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the application for permanent injunction sought by the petitioner was rejected. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in question comprises Khasra No. 201 and 202, Village Beed Khatipura, Jaipur which was acquired by the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, ‘JDA’) for its Chitrakoot scheme vide its order dated 31.07.2000 and 12% of the developed land i.e. 14,820 Sq.M was reserved towards compensation for such acquisition. Upon payment of consideration, a patta dated 05.07.1995 for plot no. 47 (250 Sq. Yards) was issued to the petitioner by the society Hatroi Gadi Ghrah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur (for short, ‘the society’) in Jagdamba Colony Vistar Beed Khatipura, Jaipur. In view of the dispute between the society, its plot holders and khatedars, the JDA deposited the compensation amount with [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (4 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] the competent civil Court. The said dispute was decided by this Court, vide its order dated 24.07.2009, whereby it was held that the Khatedars, having transferred their rights to the society, were not entitled to any compensation. Following this, respondent No. 24, claiming to be society’s administrator, filed an application dated 02.09.2011 before the JDA and submitted a concocted list of 63 members, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the list submitted by the society before the JDA on 31.05.1994 comprised of 354 members. Upon the application dated 02.09.2011, many plot owners raised objections to the list, after which, a letter dated 19.10.2015 was issued by the JDA directing the respondent No. 24 to get their entitlement decided from the competent civil Court. Similar views were expressed vide note sheets no. 343 and 348. In the meanwhile, the office of registrar of societies issued an order dated 24.11.2016 for winding up of the society and appointed respondent No. 25 as the receiver. However, affidavits on society’s behalf were submitted on 17.04.2017 seeking allotment of land reserved towards compensation with a list of 63 persons. A letter dated 24.04.2017 was then issued by the JDA to the society’s president demanding clarification regarding the list, and the same was given by respondent No. 25. Pursuant to this, objections were recorded by the JDA and in the note sheet no. 437 by the JDA on 01.11.2018, it was agreed between the society, JDA, and petitioner, Babulal Jain and Lalita Devi that they would have no objection if a combined plot is allotted to them out of the reserved land. Following this, in the list [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (5 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] provided by the JDA under the RTI, petitioner’s name appeared at item no. 154 with the plot no. 47. The JDA legal department on 11.02.2020 recommended that the JDA was not competent to ascertain the issue of ownership over the land reserved for compensation and the same needs to be ascertained by a competent civil Court first. Similar views were given vide note sheets dated 12.03.2021 and 09.06.2021. Further opinions were given vide note sheets of 593, 621 and 622. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the JDA, relying upon the consent letter of the society’s president, issued pattas in favour of 63 persons, of whom only 7 are alleged to be original allottees. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal under Section 54 read with Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act of 1982’) against the orders dated 22.08.2023 and 23.08.2023 passed by the JDA whereby pattas were issued in favour of respondent No. 2 to 23 for 62 plots in Chitrakoot scheme, Jaipur and other places as compensation for land acquisition. The petitioner further filed an application for interim injunction before the learned Tribunal and service of notices and publication was done by the petitioner under Order V Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, however, the same was rejected vide its impugned order dated 24.12.2025. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there would be complications in deciding the present lis if the respondents are permitted to carry out construction over the [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (6 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] reserved land or to further alienate the plots based on fraudulent pattas. He further submits that the respondent JDA acted against the opinion given by its own legal department that the issue of ownership can be decided by a competent civil Court only and it proceeded to issue patta to aliens despite the society being under liquidation. He also submits that the respondent No. 24 and 25 concealed the fact of appointment of liquidator and they lacked the competence to submit affidavit or undertaking when a state appointed administrator existed. 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record. 5. On going through the pleadings made in the writ petition and also the prayer made therein it is revealed that the petitioner is seeking declaration in his favour as regards his entitlement for receiving the compensation for the acquired land. The Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority is not having the jurisdiction to make a declaration as regards the title and the entitlement for seeking compensation in lieu of the acquired land. The petitioner is claiming the compensation in lieu of the acquired land he has been allotted plot by the Cooperative Housing Society which even from the pleadings of this writ petition seems to be disputed one. Until and unless there is specific declaration by the Competent Court as regards the title of the land, no any relief as sought by the petitioner by filing the reference / appeal before the Jaipur Development Authority can be granted by the Tribunal. 6. From the pleadings there seems to be disputes amongst the members of the Cooperative Housing Society and as [2026:RJ-JP:11981] (7 of 7) [CW-3749/2026] per the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, such kind of disputes in between the members of the society can be agitated before the Arbitrator. 7. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the disputes agitated before the Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur, the Court feels that it was not within the competence of the Appellate Tribunal to decide the title of the property and entitlement for seeking compensation in lieu of the acquired land. 8. In view of the above, the Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 9. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /8