Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026

July 5, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JP:5312]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 336/2019

1. Jyoti Sejwani W/o Nanak Chand Sejwani, Aged About
45 Years, R/o Plot No. 53, Shree Ram Colony, Tonk
Road, Durgapura, B 2 Bypass, Jaipur.
2. Suresh Chand Pal S/o C.S. Pal, R/o Plot No. 58, Shri
Ram Colony, Near Lakhanpuri, Durgapura By Pass Ke
Samne Tonk Road, Tehasil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Housing Board, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
2. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
3. Mahmood Alam S/o Sh. Hafijulla Khan, Aged About
68 Years, R/o Plot No. 184, Jalupura, In Front Of
Hotel Karim, Jaipur-302001.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13563/2019
1. Jyoti Sejwani Wife Of Nanak Chand Sejwani, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 53, Shree Ram
Colony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, B 2 Bypass, Jaipur.
2. Suresh Chand Pal Son Of C.S. Pal, Resident Of Plot
No. 58, Shri Ram Colony, Near Lakhanpuri,
Durgapura By Pass Ke Samne Tonk Road, Tehasil
Sanganer, Jaipur(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Housing Board, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
2. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
3. Registrar Cooperative Department, Cooperative
Department, Sahakari Samities, 22 Godown Jaipur.
4. Neeraj K. Pawan, Registrar Cooperative Societies
Sahakari Samities,22 Godown Jaipur.

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:17PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (2 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15576/2019
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary,
Janpath, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through The
Secretary, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-18, Jaipur Development
Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Administrator, Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahkari
Samiti Ltd. And Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Jaipur (City Jaipur)
4. Indu Bala Jain Wife Of Shri Shanti Kumar Jain,
Resident Of Shreeram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
5. Jyoti Devi Wife Of Shri Nanak Chand, Resident Of
Shreeram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
6. Radhe Shyam Son Of Shri Utsav Ladda, Resident Of
Shreeram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
7. Suresh Chandra Pal Son Of Shri Chiddi Singh Pal,
Resident Of Shreeram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
8. Ram Kishan Son Of Shri Late Nathmal, (Now
Deceased Through Legal Heir)
9. Sanjay Bhojnagarwala Son Of Late Shri Kishan Kumar
Agarwal @ Ramkishan, Aged About 50 Years, Sriram
Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16978/2019
Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti, B2 Bypass, Durgapura,
Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory, Shri Dev
Prakash Meena S/o Shri Panchuram Meena, R/o A-39, Prem
Colony, Meena Nursery, Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Khoot, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Urban Development And Housing,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Housing Board, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
3. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner, Jaipur.
4. Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
6. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Sahakar
Bhawan, 22 Godam, Jaipur.
7. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.
8. Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd,
Through Its Liquidator Cum Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Jaipur (City), Room No. 608,
5Th Floor, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Naman Pareek in
CW No.336/2019 & 13563/2019
(private persons) and in CWP No.
16978/2019 for Shree Ram Colony
"B" Vikas Samiti with Mr. Ashish
Sharma, Advocate
Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shovit Jhajhariya for Mr.
Mohammad Alam
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Mr.
Ankit Yadav with Mr. Anand
Sharma for petitioner in CW
No.15576/2019-Rajasthan Housing
Board

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Dubey & Mr. Abhishek
Mewara in CW No.336/2019
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Mr.
Ankit Yadav with Mr. Anand
Sharma for Rajasthan Housing
Board
Mr. J.K. Moolchandani with Mr.
Hariom Yadav in CW
No.15576/2019 for respondent

No.8
Mr. S. Kaushal for Mr. Neeraj Batra,
Govt. Counsel in CW
No.16978/2019 for respondent
No.5
Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma for
Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Ltd.

Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Lodha
& Mr. Darsh Pareek for Jaipur
Development Authority in all cases.

SPONSORED

Reportable:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

Arguments concluded on ::: February 04, 2026
Order reserved on ::: February 04, 2026
Order pronounced on ::: April 09, 2026

1. The facts of the case in brief, as per the pleadings

made by the original petitioners i.e. private persons,

Rajasthan Housing Board and Shree Ram Colony B Vikas

Samiti (for short ‘the Housing Society’), in the petitions,

which have been filed separately, are as under:-

** On 12.10.1979 the Urban Improvement Trust (for
short ‘the UIT’) issued a notice under Section 52 of the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, with regard to
acquiring the land.

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:17PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (5 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

** By way of an agreement to sale dated 31.07.1981
the Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samity Limited (for
short ‘the Vikas Samiti), Jaipur purchased the land, came into
possession, prepared the plan for residential scheme named
as Shri Ram Colony and made allotment of plots to its
members.

** An another agreement was executed on 31.07.1986
for extension of time for payment. Further on 13.12.1988 one
another agreement was executed, which was signed by the
successors and also by the original signatories to the
agreement dated 31.07.1981.

** On 02.09.1989 the RHB published a scheme for
construction of residential houses upon the agricultural land,
measuring 42 Bighas 10 Biswas, situated in village Chainpura
and Durgapura in Jaipur City.

*** On 10.01.1990 a Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act of 1894) was issued
by the State Government for construction of a housing colony
by the RHB.

** On 09.04.1990 the Khatedars/Tenants filed
objections against the said acquisition.
** On 19.07.1990 the State Government published a
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, which was
followed by another notification dated 04.01.1991, whereby,
invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (a), declaration
was made under Section 6 and a direction was given to the
concerned authority under Section 9 to take possession of the
land in question.

** Few persons claiming to be the Khatedars,
submitted a representation on 09.04.1990 to the State
Government in regard to the land in question.

*** On 13.04.1991 the Housing Cooperative Society
issued a notice under Section 80 of CPC opposing the
acquisition and for dropping the same.
** A declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894,
was issued dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of
the said Act by resorting to Section 17(4) of the said Act,
which was published in the official gazette on 13.06.1991.
** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5561/1991 was filed by
the Khatedars/Tenants by which validity of both the
acquisition notifications were challenged.
** On 05.12.1991 physical possession of the land in
question was taken by the concerned authority of the State
Government which was handed over to the representatives of
the RHB.

** On 16.12.1991 an interim order to maintain the
status quo was passed in SBCWP No.5561/1991 by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court passed an order for appointment of Commissioner and
also directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the land
and the houses thereon.

** Vide order dated 25.07.1992 the interim order
dated 16.12.1991 was confirmed.

** The Khatedars submitted objections before the
Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the LAO’).
** The LAO passed the award on 20.07.1993
** On 23.08.1993 the compensation was sent to the
learned Civil Judge by the LAO.

** On 18.09.1993 the Khatedars submitted a
reference/petition before the Civil Judge.
** The Government to deal with the problems relating
to housing colonies, which have been developed on
agriculture land, which have been either acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act or other laws and Government lands,

took policy decision on 18.02.1994 for relaxing the
prohibitions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules with regard to
conversion and regularization, enacted in 1981 and provided
modality for conversion of such lands.
** On 24.03.1994 the Government also sent a detailed
clarification with regard to the points raised by the JDA.
** On 31.03.1994 the JDA issued a public notice,
inviting the applications for conversion of land
use/regularization.

** The Cooperative Society pursuant to the said
notice, submitted necessary documents and list of members
before the JDA for regularising the scheme named as Shri
Ram Colony-B in the year 1994. The JDA issued and
published a list of the members of the Cooperative Society.
** On 21.01.1995 the President of Cooperative Society
submitted a representation to the Government in regard to
the land in question.

** On 22.01.1995 a meeting was held by the Chief
Secretary after a joint inspection of the site by authorities of
various departments, JDA and the RHB.
** Similarly another representation was given on
07.04.1995 to the concerned authority of the JDA for
regularization of the scheme.

** The Building Plan Committee of the JDA was held.
One of the Khatedars submitted an affidavit that in case the
scheme of Shri Ram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur is approved by
JDA, he will withdraw the writ petition.
** On 06.05.1995 the JDA wrote a letter to the
Secretary of the Cooperative Society that in case the writ
petition filed by the Khatedars is withdrawn, the JDA will
approve the scheme in question.

** Another meeting of BPC-II of JDA was held on
29.05.1995.

** In response to the communications dated
14.12.1993 and 14.02.1995, received from the Deputy Legal
Adviser, UDH, communications were made in between the
RHB and the JDA. The JDA issued a letter of approval of the
scheme on 29.05.1995, but RHB was unaware about the
same. Hence, RHB filed a writ petition bearing No.3259/1995
on 18.07.1995.

** CWP No.5561/1991 titled as Ram Avtar
Bhojnagarwala vs. State, was disposed of vide order dated
15.05.1995 in view of the approval of the scheme by the JDA
vide its letter dated 29.05.1995.

** On 29.05.1995 the JDA approved a map of Shri
Ram Colony on Tonk Road after verifying the boundaries of
the scheme, as per the Revenue Record, inquiry, verification
of title, inspection of site by the members of BPC-II and the
decision taken in meeting dated 19.05.1995.
** On 18.06.1995 the JDA published a notice in
newspaper for holding the regularization camp of the said
scheme. The members of the society participated in the camp
and deposited the regularization charges as cost of land.
** The Housing Board irrespective of being a party to
the aforesaid proceedings in which it was decided that the
society will surrender the land for construction of road, the
writ petition filed by the Khatedars will be withdrawn and the
plan of the Cooperative Society will be approved and
regularization will be done, took U-turn and started opposing
the action of the JDA in constructing the road and deciding to
regularize the scheme of the Cooperative Society and finally
filed a writ petition No.3259/1995 making JDA as a sole party
(without impleading the State Government and Cooperative
Society as party). On 02.08.1995 the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the aforementioned writ petition passed an
interim order.

** The writ petition No.5561/1991 filed by the
Khatedars challenging the validity of acquisition was
dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 15.05.1996.
** The JDA published a notice withdrawing the
approval of plans. Pending writ petition No.3259/1995, the
JDA withdrew the order of approval dated 29.05.1995. The
writ petition No.3064/1996 was filed by Indu Bala Jain and
four others in which challenge was made to the notice
published in Rajasthan Patrika on 31.05.1996.
*** An interim order of status quo was passed on
12.07.1996.

** Vide circular dated 23.04.1997 the Government
superseded its earlier circular dated 04.03.1992 as well
18.02.1994 and issued a new circular providing therein that
in case the land has been purchased upto 23.04.1997
through agreement to sale and copy of agreement has been
deposited with the competent authority and conversion
charges have been deposited partially and fully by
21.07.1997, the regularization will be made as per the rates
mentioned in Scheduled-III to the circular. The circular was
made applicable to the acquired land also.
** Vide letter dated 06.01.2000 the Chairman RHB
informed the Government that it is not practicable to
implement the scheme by the RHB.

** The writ petition filed by the RHB against the JDA
bearing No.3259/1995, was dismissed as having become
infructuous vide order dated 02.08.2001.
** Vide order dated 12.02.2002 the Coordinate Bench
of this Court quashed the impugned notice/information
published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 31.05.1996 and
directed the JDA to issue pattas of the land in question.
** The RHB filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.435/2002 against the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by

the Coordinate Bench of this Court which was dismissed by
the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 05.01.2010.
** A Special Leave to Petition was filed by the RHB
against the order dated 05.01.2010 passed by Hon’ble
Division Bench in SAW No.435/2002.

** D.B. Civil Review Petition No.4/2010 filed by the
RHB was dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2010.
** An interim order was passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 19.03.2010 in the SLP filed by the RHB.
** Vide order dated 21.03.2013 One Mahmud Alam
was impleaded as party respondent No.8 in the SLP on the
application filed by him.

** On 22.09.2017 one Prabhu Dayal Modi claiming
himself to be the power of attorney holder of Khatedars, filed
an application for impleadment of party in the SLP claiming
that the Khatedars did not sale the land.
*** The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
09.10.2018 dismissed the SLP and all pending applications.
** The RHB filed a Review Petition No.215/2019 before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order
dated 21.01.2019.

2. With the background of the aforementioned facts,

the writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 336/2019

has been filed by the petitioners namely; Jyoti Sejwani and

Suresh Chand Pal with the following prayers:-

“a) by way of writ, order or directions the order
dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Housing
Board Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) by way of writ, order or directions the order
dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Jaipur

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:17PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (11 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

Development Authority, Jaipur may kindly be
quashed and set aside.

C) by way of writ, order or directions the order
passed by the learned single judge 12.2.2002 in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3064/96 which has been
affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order
dated 5.1.2010 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
435/02 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 9.10.2018 may kindly be complied
forthwith.”

By the letter dated 31.10.2018 which is under

challenge, the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short ‘the RHB’)

requested the Commissioner, JDA to take appropriate action

to make a proper inquiry into the matter and not to allow

encroachments over the land in question and by the order

dated 22.11.2018 in question, the JDA informed the RHB that

the demarcation of the land in question be made and to

remove the encroachments in the presence of the Officers of

the RHB.

3. Another writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13563/2019 has been filed by the petitioners namely;

Jyoti Sejwani and Suresh Chand Pal with the following

prayers:-

“a) by way of writ, order or directions the notices
dated 12.6.2019 and 1.7.2019 passed by the
respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) by way of writ, order or directions the Jaipur
Development Authority may be directed to issue
Pattas to the members of the society whose list has
also been submitted earlier.

c) by way of writ, order or directions the order
passed by the learned single judge 12.2.2002 in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3064/96 which has been
affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order
dated 5.1.2010 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
435/02 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 9.10.2018 may kindly be complied
forthwith.

d) Any other appropriate writ, order or directions
which this Hon’ble Court deem fit to impose upon
the petitioner may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.”

By the notices under challenge dated 12.06.2019

and 01.07.2019, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

Rajasthan, Jaipur, has asked the Administrator of the Vikas

Samiti to cancel the allotment letters which are illegal and

there is a U.O. Note of the JDA for demolition of the alleged

illegal constructions made over the land in question.

4. Another writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.16978/2019 has been filed by Shree Ram Colony “B”

Vikas Samiti, B2 Bypass (for short ‘the Housing Society’),

with the following prayers:-

“(i) to quash and set aside the directions/letters of
respondent no.6, in so far they relate to

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:17PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (13 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

stoppage/demolition of constructions in Shri Ram
Colony Tonk Road, Jaipur and to restrain the other
respondents from acting upon the directions/letters
dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure-21) and 12.06.2019
(Annexure-22) written by him as well as upon the
report of inquiry annexed with letter dated
25.07.2019 (Annexure-26);

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents
preventing them from taking any coercive steps
against the plot holders of Shri Ram Colony Tonk
Road, Jaipur (like demolition, dispossession,
disconnection of amenities and facilities etc.)
contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3064/1996 on
12.02.2002 as upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and also to take appropriate steps for making
development and providing amenities and facilities
as being provided in colonies regularized/under
regularization by Jaipur Development Authority;

(iii) to issue any other appropriate relief which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the
Petitioner;

(iv) to allow the cost of the writ petition in favor of
the Petitioner.”

By the impugned letter dated 03.06.2019, the

Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has asked

the Commissioner, JDA, Jaipur that since an inquiry is being

conducted by the Enquiry Committee as regards the

complaint in respect of the Housing Society (Shree Ram

Colony-B), the JDA is requested to put halt all the

constructions made over the land in question. By the letter

dated 12.06.2019 which is assailed herein, the Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, has asked from the

Administrator of the Vikas Samiti to cancel the allotment

letters which have been declared illegal. In the letter under

challenge dated 25.07.2019 the Chairman of the Enquiry

Committee has submitted the inquiry report to the Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein certain

observations have been made against the existence of the

Housing Society.

5. One another writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.15576/2019 has been filed by the Rajasthan

Housing Board with the following prayers:-

“i.) By an appropriate writ order or direction, in
view of the enquiry report dated 25.7.2019, the
order dated 29.5.1995 passed by respondent-
authority be declared void ab-initio as the same
was in regard to land which has vested in the State
Government;

ii.) By an appropriate writ order or direction, all the
subsequent actions of the respondent-authority be
declared illegal;

iii.) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
land acquisition proceedings initiated vide
notification dated 2.9.1989 be declared legal and
valid and have completed with vesting in the State
Government and thereafter in the petitioner-Board

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:17PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (15 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

as per Land Acquisition Act applicable at the time
of passing of the Award;

iv.) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
agreement to sale dated 31.7.1981 be declared
illegal, inexecutable and void ab-initio being anti-
dated;

v.) Any other appropriate order or direction, which
the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case”

6. Mr. M.M. Ranjan Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Naman Pareek and Mr. Ashish Sharma learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners (private persons) in CWP

Nos.336/2019, 13563/2019 and in CWP No. 16978/2019-for

Shree Ram Colony “B’ Vikas Samiti have submitted that as

regards the land in question, the matter has attained finality

upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has also been submitted that

vide order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Single

Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3064/1996, the JDA was

directed to issue patta to the petitioners of the land in

question (Society). Counsels also submitted that the against

the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Single

Judge, the Rajasthan Housing Board preferred D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.435/2002, which was dismissed on

05.01.2010 and the matter has attained finality upto the

Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the respondent- JDA is under

an obligation to issue Pattas to the members of the Vikas

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (16 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

Samiti to whom the pattas were allotted by the Housing

Society.

7. Shri A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Dinesh Yadav, Mr. Ankit Yadav and Mr. Anand Sharma,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Rajasthan

Housing Board in CWP No.15576/2019 and the respondents

in other writ petitions has submitted that the order dated

12.02.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP

No.3064/1996 has been obtained by the petitioners therein

by fraud and misrepresentation. He submitted that the fraud

vitiates all the proceedings and the orders. It was also

submitted that the Audit Report as regards the year 1986 and

so also the Inquiry Committee’s report dated 25.07.2019

clearly speak that no any such Scheme i.e. Shreeram Colony

‘B’ was ever floated over the land in question prior to its

acquisition. He submitted that if an order is obtained by fraud

or misrepresentation, it cannot be put to execution as such,

as the same is void, even though it may have attained finality

but in case at a later stage it is proved that the order has

been obtained with fraud and misrepresentation, same can be

declared of no force. To support the submissions, Senior

Counsel has relied upon the judgment delivered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in State of A.P. & Anr. v. T.

Suryachandra Rao, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 149.

Senior Counsel also submitted that CWP

No.3064/1996 was filed by the petitioners therein without

impleading the original khatedars of the land in question so

also the Housing Society as party respondents, which is said

to have made allotments of the plots after the land being

purchased from the khatedars by way of agreement to sale.

8. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.8- Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari

Samiti Ltd. (in CW P.No. 16978/2019) also submitted that no

any record as regards allotment of the plots made to the

Members of the Society has been submitted by the erstwhile

Office Bearers of the Society so as to verify the claims as

made by the members of the Housing Society.

9. Shri R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Prateek Mathur appearing for Mr. Mohammad Alam submitted

that the claim on behalf of the alleged members of the Vikas

Samiti is based on forged documents. He submitted that the

inquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Committee clearly

speaks of the forgery.

10. Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Jai Lodha and Mr. Darsh Pareek, learned counsel appearing

for the JDA has adopted the arguments advanced by the

Senior Counsel appearing for the RHB and submitted that

since the judgment passed in CWP No.3064/1996 has been

obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, same is vitiated

and cannot be enforced.

11. Shri M.M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Naman Pareek appearing for the petitioners in CWP

Nos.336/2019 and 13563/2019 and Mr. Ashish Sharma in

CWP No. 16978/2019 in rejoinder submitted that the issue of

alleged fraud has already been taken into consideration in the

earlier round of litigation and the RHB and the other

authorities have not come out that who committed the fraud.

He also submitted that complainant Mr. Mohammad Alam was

made a party on an application submitted before the Hon’ble

Apex Court and the alleged fraud was taken into

consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the SLP filed by the

RHB was dismissed as the court did not notice any fraud or

misrepresentation and therefore, the RHB and other

authorities are now stopped from raising the issue of

misrepresentation.

12. On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions

made on behalf of the parties, one of the basic issue emerges

for consideration of this Court is ‘Whether any order /

judgment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is liable to

be held ineffective as all such proceedings are vitiated and if

yes, can it be held so when the order or decision has attained

the finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court?

13. Senior Counsel appearing for the Rajasthan

Housing Board in CWP No.15576/2019 in respect of the

aforesaid issue referring the judgment of T. Suryachandra

Rao (supra) submitted that if any order /judgment is

obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, same can be

declared as invalid as the whole proceedings on such fraud or

misrepresentation stands vitiated.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment

explaining the fraud and its effect has observed in paras

7,8,9,10,11,12,15,16 and 17 as under:-

“7. The order of the High Court is clearly erroneous.
There is no dispute that the land which was offered
for surrender by the respondent had already been
acquired by the State and the same had vested in it.
This was clearly a case of fraud. Merely because an
enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not divested of
the power to correct the error when the respondent
had clearly committed a fraud.

8. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive;
whether it is from any expectation of advantage to
the party himself or from ill-will towards the other is
immaterial. The expression “fraud” involves two
elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived.
Injury is something other than economic loss, that is,
deprivation of property, whether movable or
immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm
whatever caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-
economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (20 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause
loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare
cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the
deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived,
the second condition is satisfied. [See Vimla (Dr.) v.

Delhi Admn. [1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 : AIR 1963 SC
1572 at pp. 1576-77 para 14 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 434]
and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd.
[(1996) 5 SCC 550].

9. A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the
design of securing something by taking unfair
advantage of another. It is a deception in order to
gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to
get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .)

10. “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn
act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is
a conduct either by letter or words, which includes
the other person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the conduct of
the former either by words or letter. It is also well
settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to
fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also
give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in
leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly
causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a
fraud in law if a party makes representations, which
he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom
although the motive from which the representations
proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud

on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others
in relation to a property would render the transaction
void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.
Although in a given case a deception may not amount
to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles
and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any
equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319])

11. “Fraud” and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton’s
sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing
me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into
snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or
deceit. In Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary “fraud” in equity has been defined as an
act or omission to act or concealment by which one
person obtains an advantage against conscience over
another or which equity or public policy forbids as
being prejudicial to another. In Black’s Law
Dictionary, “fraud” is defined as an intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable
thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. A
false representation of a matter of fact, whether by
words or by conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended
to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his

legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been
defined as criminal deception, use of false
representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest
artifice or trick. According to Halsbury’s Laws of
England, a representation is deemed to have been
false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at
the material date false in substance and in fact.
Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines “fraud”
as an act committed by a party to a contract with the
intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning
or even otherwise fraud arises out of a deliberate
active role of the representator about a fact, which
he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading
the representee by making him believe it to be true.
The representation to become fraudulent must be of
fact with the knowledge that it was false. In a leading
English case i.e. Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep
1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes “fraud”
was described thus : (All ER p. 22 B-C)
“[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii)
without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless
whether it be true or false.”

But “fraud” in public law is not the same as “fraud” in
private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish
“fraud” in commercial transaction, be of assistance in
determining fraud in administrative law. It has been
aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy. of
State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 : 1984
AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (HL)] that it is dangerous
to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of
fraud while determining fraud in relation to statutory
law. “Fraud” in relation to statute must be a

colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a
statute.

” ‘If a statute has been passed for some one
particular purpose, a court of law will not
countenance any attempt which may be made to
extend the operation of the Act to something else
which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its
scope.’ Present-day concept of fraud on statute has
veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise
of power. It may arise due to overstepping the
limits of power or defeating the provision of statute
by adopting subterfuge or the power may be
exercised for extraneous or irrelevant
considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or
administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming
different shades. It arises from a deception
committed by disclosure of incorrect facts
knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of
power and procure an order from an authority or
tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction
which otherwise would not have been exercised.
That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the
conditions provided in a section on existence or
non-existence of which power can be exercised.
But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a
statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud.
Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of
every fact does not vitiate the agreement. ‘In a
contract every person must look for himself and
ensures that he acquires the information necessary
to avoid bad bargain.’ In public law the duty is not
to deceive.” (See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros.
[(1992) 1 SCC 534] SCC p. 554, para 20.)

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (24 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

12. In that case it was observed as follows : (SCC p.

553, para 20)
“20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton’s
sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing
me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into
snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or
deceit. In Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an
act or omission to act or concealment by which one
person obtains an advantage against conscience
over another or which equity or public policy
forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black’s
Law Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some
valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal
right; a false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed, which deceives
and is intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford
Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal
deception, use of false representation to gain
unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick.
According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, a
representation is deemed to have been false, and
therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the
material date false in substance and in fact. Section

17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act
committed by a party to a contract with intent to
deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even
otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role
of representator about a fact which he knows to be
untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the
representee by making him believe it to be true.
The representation to become fraudulent must be
of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a
leading English case Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All
ER Rep 1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what
constitutes fraud was described thus : (All ER p. 22
B-C)
‘[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or

(ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly,
careless whether it be true or false.’ ”

…

15. “Fraud” is a conduct either by letter or words,
which induces the other person or authority to take a
definite determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of the former either by words or letter.
Although negligence is not fraud but it can be
evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav
case [(2003) 8 SCC 311] .

16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB
702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)]
Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All
ER p. 345 C)
“No judgment of a court, no order of a
minister, can be allowed to stand if it has

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (26 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything.”

In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that
fraud “vitiates all transactions known to the law of
however high a degree of solemnity”. [ [Ed. : (1956)
1 All ER 341 at p. 351 placitum E-F]]

17. Considering the aforesaid principles of law and
the background facts, the Tribunal was justified in
modifying the earlier order and varying it. The
Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error in
upholding it. The High Court’s order is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside.”

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramjas Foundation &

Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 14

SCC 38 has observed in para 21 as under:-

“21. The principle that a person who does not come
to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any
case, such person is not entitled to any relief is
applicable not only to the petitions filed under
Articles 32 , 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also
to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial
forums. The object underlying the principle is that
every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to
protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not
have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the
stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by
making misstatement or by suppressing facts which

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (27 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising
in the case.”

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rameshwar & Ors. v.

State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2018) 6 SCC 215

has observed in paras 38 and 39 as under:-

“38. Thus, in cases where there was no valid
acquisition but the land was taken possession of and
developed, restoration of land to the landholders was
not found to be the appropriate, adequate and
complete relief and this Court directed that process of
acquisition be initiated taking or treating certain date
to be the relevant date for initiation of the
acquisition. If the power can go to the extent of
directing acquisition in such manner, in a case where
an acquisition having been properly and validly
initiated if the supervening circumstances show that
there was complete fraud on power in dropping the
acquisition, can the power of the superior court not
extend to/not be extended for passing appropriate
directions to complete the acquisition and subserve
the public interest. But for such fraud on power, the
matter in the present case was ripe for
pronouncement of award when the acquisition was
dropped just two days before the date of
pronouncement. All the steps leading to the
publication of date for pronouncement of award
having been validly and correctly undertaken, can a
direction not be passed that there was a deemed
award and completed acquisition.

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (28 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

39. Wherever there has been fraud on power, the
duty of the Court is not only to set aside such
exercise of power but to see that there is no unjust
enrichment directly or indirectly as a result thereof
and there is full and substantial restoration. Going by
the principles laid down by this Court in Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action [Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC
161 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 87] unjust retention of
benefit would be completely against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It
was observed therein that so long as the deprivation
of a party has not been fully compensated for,
injustice to that extent continues. Having found that
there was a clear case of fraud on power as a result
of which unnatural and unreasonable gains have been
derived by certain builders/private entities, we
consider it our duty to grant full restitution. The
restoration in real and substantial terms has to
ensure that the public purpose, the acquisition was
intended to achieve, stands subserved. In our
considered view, this is an appropriate case where
this Court has to declare that there was a completed
acquisition and the award deemed to have been
passed on the date when it was supposed to be
pronounced i.e. on 26-8-2007. The suggested relief
by the learned Amicus Curiae is also on similar lines.”

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan &

Ors. v. Debajit Das & Ors., reported in (2019) 12 SCC

275 has observed in para 29 as under:-

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (29 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

“29. We are of the opinion that it was virtually a case
of fraud, at least on three counts. First, by creating
ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer only for
Respondent 1 and giving him that post when he was
much junior to many others. Second, encadrement of
Respondent 1 as Executive Engineer by showing that
there were thirteen posts when, in fact, there were
only ten posts of Executive Engineer on that date.

This was done obviously with the purpose of
accommodating him. Third, the promotion was given
when Respondent 1 was not even eligible as per
Rules as he had not put in minimum service of five
years. Fraud vitiates every action and cannot be kept
under the carpet on the ground that the action
challenged was belated, more so when there is a
reasonable explanation for such delay.”

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hamza Haji v. State of

Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 7 SCC 416 has

observed in para 26 as under:-

“26. The High Court, as a court of record, has
exercised its jurisdiction to set at naught the order of
the Forest Tribunal thus procured by the appellant by
finding that the same is vitiated by fraud. There
cannot be any doubt that the Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India has the power to undo a decision that has been
obtained by playing a fraud on the Court. The
appellant has invoked our jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. When we find in
agreement with the High Court that the order

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (30 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

secured by him is vitiated by fraud, it is obvious that
this Court should decline to come to his aid by
refusing the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We do
not think that it is necessary to refer to any authority
in support of this position except to notice the
decision in Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. R.K.
Sharma [(2002) 1 SCC 749 : 2001 Supp (5) SCR
662].”

19. Senior Counsel assisted by other counsels

appearing for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 336/2019,

13563/2019 and 16978/2019 were not in a position to

controvert the settled position that a decision or order

obtained by fraud or misrepresentation if attained finality is

not vitiated and it remains in force and effective once it has

attained finality.

20. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex

Court, in the cases referred to above, the question is

answered on the line that if the Court comes to the

conclusion that in a litigation any decision/ order of any Court

has been obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation then

the same is to be held vitiated and is to be undone and held

not enforceable. The Court has an ample power to undo such

decision.

21. The another issue which emerges for consideration

of this Court is ‘Whether the earlier order dated 12.02.2006

in passed in CWP No.3064/196 was obtained by the

petitioners therein by playing fraud or misrepresentation and

if yes, whether such alleged fraud or misrepresentation has

been taken care of or considered by the Courts upto the

Hon’ble Apex Court at any stage.

22. On scrutiny of the pleadings and the material

available on the record, it is revealed that the case of the

Vikas Samiti and other petitioners in CWP Nos. 336/2019,

13563/2019 and 16978/2019, is that by way of an

agreement to sale dated 31.07.1981, the Jawaharpuri

Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited purchased the land

from its khatedars and came into possession. After taking

into possession they carved out a plan for residential scheme

named as Shree Ram Colony-B and made allotment of the

plots to its members. One more agreement dated 31.07.1986

was executed in between the Society and the khatedars for

extension of the time for making the payment. It has been

pleaded that another agreement was executed on 13.12.1988

which was signed by the successors of the khatedars and also

by the signatory of the agreement dated 31.07.1981,

meaning-thereby the khatedars. It is submitted by the

counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP. Nos. 336/2019,

13563/2019 and 16978/2019 that the Society came into

possession over the land in question on the basis of the

agreement to sale and thereafter they have carved out the

residential scheme in the name of Shree Ram Colony-B. It is

also submitted by them that on the basis of the aforesaid

facts the petitioners who are the members of Shree Ram

Colony-B, are entitled for allotment of the lease deeds for the

plots which were allotted by Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti

and when the JDA did not adhere to their claim they

preferred writ petition No.3064/1996 which came to be

decided vide order dated 12.02.2002 which has attained

finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court.

23. Senior Counsel appearing for the Rajasthan

Housing Board submitted that the Urban Improvement Trust

issued a notice under section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban

Improvement Act, 1959 as regards acquiring the of the land

in question. On 02.09.1989 the Rajasthan Housing Boad

published a Scheme for construction of residential houses

upon the land measuring 42 bighas and 10 biswas which

includes the land in question. Notification dated 10.01.1990

was issued under section 4 of the Act of 1894 by the State

Government for construction of a housing colony by the RHB

and the said notification was objected by the khatedars of the

land in question. Another notification was issued on

19.07.1990 followed by one more notification dated

04.01.1991 for invoking the urgency clause under section

17(a) and declaration was made under section 6 and a

direction was given to the concerned authority under section

9 to take possession of the land in question. He submitted

that the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was

made on 13.06.1991 dispensing with the inquiry under

section 5A of the said Act.

Thereafter, a writ petition bearing SBCW P.No.

5561/1991 came to be filed on 20.11.1991 by the khatedars

assailing the validity of both the acquisition notifications,

however, the physical possession of the land in question was

taken by the concerned authority of the State Government

and handed over to the representatives of the RHB. He

submitted that on 20.07.1993 the Land Acquisition Officer

passed the award and the compensation amount was sent to

the concerned Civil Judge. Thereafter, the khatedars

submitted a reference petition before the learned Civil Judge.

24. Senior counsel appearing for the RHB submitted

that the fraud and misrepresentation by the members of the

Society (Vikas Samiti) came to the notice in the Audit Report

of 1986 for the period 01.07.1981- 30.06.1982. He also

submitted that an Inquiry Committee was constituted so as to

make an inquiry into the allegations against the Society with

regards the land in question and the Inquiry Committee

submitted its report on 25.07.2019 which speaks that the

members of the society have played fraud and

misrepresentation while obtaining the order dated

12.02.2002 in CWP No.3064/1996. It is also submitted by the

Senior counsel that just to put a cover on the fraud and

misrepresentation played by the members of the society, they

even did not care to implead the original khatedars and the

Housing Society which said to have allotted the plots to them

as party to the earlier litigation.

25. The brief facts brought before the Court in CWP

No.3064/1996 as revealed in the order dated 12.02.2002 are

quoted as under:-

“The undisputed facts are that the
petitioners are the members of Jawaharpuri Grah
Nirman Sahakari Samiti (hereinafter referred to as
“the Samiti”) and they have filed this writ petition
in representative capacity as the members of the
Samiti which is a registered Housing Society.

The case of the petitioners is that the
petitioner- Samiti entered into an agreement of
sale dt. 31.7.1981 with the Khatedars of the land in
dispute. Urban Improvement Trust Jaipur
(hereinafter referred to as “the UIT”) sought to
acquire the land in dispute for planned
development of Jaipur City by issuing a notice
under Sec. 52(2) of the Urban Improvement Trust
Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of
1959”). Pursuant to this, khatedars of the land
raised objections but the acquisition proceedings
had come to an end thereafter, the land in dispute
was demarcated for the “residential colony” known
as Sriram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, plan of which
was submitted to the Additional Collector, JDA for
Land Conversion who in turn forwarded the matter

to the JDA for approval. In compliance of the layout
plan some of the members deposited conversion
charges. However, the matter for regularisation of
the said ind was pending for necessary approval of
the JDA.

Thereafter, the State Govt. issued
notification dt. 10.1.1990 (Annexure-3) U/s. 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act of 1894”) for acquisition of the said
land to which, khatedars of the land raised
objections. Hence, the respondents issued a
notification on 4.1.1991 (Annexure-4) u/s. 17(4) of
the Act of 1894 whereby the proceedings under
Sec. SA of the Act of 1894 were dispensed with and
notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued.

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned
notification issued by the respondents under Sec. 6
of the Act of 1894, the Khatedars of the land in
dispute filed a petition before this Court bearing
SBCWP No. 5561/1991 (Ramavtar Vs. State &
Ors.) wherein, this Court directed the parties to
maintain status-quo.

Thereafter, the State Govt. had taken
policy decision vide order dt. 24.3.1994 (Annexure-

5) and issued a circular to regularise the land in
dispute; to which Housing Society entered into an
agreement to sale on 31.7.1981 and deposited the
partial conversion charges vide Annexure-2 dt.
13.4.1982 for regularisation of the land in their
favour.

In pursuance of the above Policy decision
of the State Govt. taken vide Circular dt. 24.3.94,
the JDA asked the petitioner Samiti to furnish the

documents pertaining to agreement to sale and in
compliance of which the petitioners furnished the
requisite documents alongwith the receipt
indicating the deposit of conversion charges. When
the respondents did not take any further action in
the matter, the petitioners submitted a
representation to the JDA requesting it to
regularise the scheme pursuant to the State
Government’s Policy mentioning therein that the
members have constructed their boundary walls
and some of them have started residing by
constructing theirhouses alongwith their families.
In the meanwhile, in order to fulfill the object of
Master Plan, the JDA discussed the matter with the
Chief Secretary, Govt. of Raj. for the purpose of
construction of Link Road. Thereupon, the
authorities perused the boundary walls and
dwelling units. After discussion, the matter was
placed in the meeting of Building Plan Committee
of JDA on 22.4.1995 and it was decided to approve
the scheme and possession of the land in dispute
was to be taken no sooner the petition is withdrawn
from the respective Court.

Ramavtar who was petitioner in SBCWP
No. 5561/91 submitted an affidavit for withdrawal
of the petition immediately after the scheme is
approved. Thereafter, Meeting was convened at the
instance of the respondent in which following
decision was taken:-

“(1) The Society will surrender the land
to Jaipur Development Authority falling within the
right of way of the proposed By-pass. The society

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (37 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

will not claim any compensation for this surrender
of this land for road.

(2) The Director (Engg.), Jaipur
Development Authority will immediately take up
the construction work of the proposed road as per
the alignments to be finalized by the Town Planning
Wing of Jaipur Development Authority.

(3) The Chief Engineer, Rajasthan
Housing Board also agreed to provide all necessary
help for the construction of the important By-pass
so that there is a smooth flow of traffic from
Mansarovar to Malviya Nagar, Tonk Road and
Airport areas.

(4) After considering the layout plan of
the society scheme the Jaipur Development
Authority will take the possession of the land falling
within the right of way and the society will
withdraw the court stay.”

In view of the aforesaid decision taken in
the meeting, it was decided to regularize the
scheme and the construction over the by-pass was
taken to be free of cost and thus, the Building
Committee of the JDA in its meeting approved the
plan.

Thereafter, on the request of the
Members of the Samiti (the petitioners & other
persons) the JDA declared the programme for
holding camp of Housing Society (Sriram Colony)
and advertised the same Rajasthan Patrika dt.
18.6.1995 (Ann. 16) for holding the camp on
22.6.1995. Pursuant to the above advertisement,
the petitioners (Samiti) deposited the conversion
charges.

Hence, on account of the above decision
taken by the JDA, Ramavtar (petitioner in SBCWP
No. 5561/91) withdrew the said Petition as not
pressed.”

26. On the complaints against the Society, an Inquiry

Committee was constituted by the Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and the Inquiry Committee

submitted its report on 25.07.2019. The report of the Inquiry

Committee is quoted as under:-

“f’kdk;rdrkZ Jh egewn vkye o f’kdk;rdrkZ Jh jktsUnz
xqIrk rFkk Jh Mh-ih-eh.kk o lHkh fuoklh Jhjke dkWyksuh dh
vksj ls viuk izfrosnu lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf’kr [kcjksa ds
mijkUr izLrqr fd;k gSA ftldk desVh }kjk ijh{k.k ,oa
foospu jftLVªkj egksn; ds tkap ds fcUnqvksa ds laca/k esa fd;k
x;kA
fdlh Hkh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr ds tkap ds fy,
fuEukafdr ewy fjdksMZ vko’;d gS%&
1- dk;Zokgh jftLVj
2- lnL;rk jftLVj
3- ystj
4- dS’k cqd
5- jlhn lnL;rk ‘kqYd
6- lnL;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s vkosnu i=
7- tk;nkn jftLVj ¼tehu [kjhn ls lacaf/kr ewy vuqca/k i=
vkfn½
8- Hkw[k.M vkaoVu jftLVj
9- fgLlk jftLVj

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (39 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

v/;{k tkap desVh }kjk volk;d tokgjiqjh Hkou
lgdkjh lfefr fy- ,oa mi jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;ka]
t;iqj ‘kgj ls mDr lfefr dh tkap ls lacaf/kr fjdksMZ
miyC/k djokus ckcr fnukad 22-7-2019 dks tkap ds laca/k esa
lfefr o dk’rdkjksa ds e/; fnukad 31-7-1981 dks gq,
bdjkjukesa dh ewy izfr] lfefr dh mDr ;kstuk ds l`tu ds
lac/k esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu jftLVj] lnL;rk jftLVj] dk;Zokgh
jftLVj] vkWfMV fjiksVZ ,oa mDr tkap ls lacaf/kr ewy nLrkost
,oa izfr;ka tks vko’;d gks miyC/k djkus ckcr i= fy[kk
x;kA ftlds izfr mÙkj esa fnukad 23-7-2019 dks volk;d
tokgjiqjh Hkou lgdkjh lfefr fy- ,oa mi jftLVªkj lgdkjh
lfefr;ka] t;iqj ‘kgj }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd mDr
lfefr dk fnukad 11-01-2004 dks volk;u esa vkus ds i’pkr
lfefr esa fu;qDr iz’kkld ,oa lekidksa }kjk lfefr ls fjdksMZ
izkfIr gsrq vusd i= fy[ks x;s ,oa lfefr esa fu;qDr lekid
Jh lqjsUnz Bsuqvk us 27-11-2024 dks lfefr ds fjdksMZ izkfIr gsrq
,d ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djok;h xbZ] ftlesa iqfyl }kjk fnukad
29-05-2015 dks ,Q-vkj- yxk nh xbZA ftlds izksVsLV fifV’ku
rr~le; ds volk;d Jh eqds’k dqekj }kjk fnukad 30-10-2017
dks fjdksMZ izkfIr gsrq yxkbZ xbZA vkt fnukad rd miyC/k
fjdksMZ ds vuqlkj mDr lfefr ds ewy fjdksMZ lfefr ds iwoZ
inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls izkIr ugha gqvk gSa] fjdksMZ izkfIr dh dk;Zokgh
dh tk jgh gSA mDr lfefr dk fjdksMZ izkIr gksus ds i’pkr
pkgh xbZ lwpuk miyC/k djokbZ tkosxhA
tk¡p&fcUnqvks&ij&rF;kRed&fooj.k
1- tokgjiqjh Hkou fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fy-] t;iqj
dh ;kstuk Jhjke dkWyksuh&ch ds l`tu ds fy, dk’rdkjksa ,oa
tokgjiqjh Hkou x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fy-] t;iqj ds
e/; fu”ikfnr bdjkjukek dh oS/krkA

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (40 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

rF;kRed fooj.k%& lekid tokgjiqj Hkou lgdkjh lfefr
fy- ,oa mi jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;ka] t;iqj ‘kgj ds }kjk
v/;{k tkap desVh }kjk volk;d tokgjiqjh Hkou lgdkjh
lfefr fy- ,oa mi jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;ka] t;iqj ‘kgj
ls mDr lfefr ls tkap o fjdksMZ miyC/k djokus ckcr
fnukad 22-7-2019 dks tkap ds laca/k esa lfefr o dk’rdkjksa ds
e/; fnukad 31-7-1981 dks gq, bdjkjukes dh ewy izfr] lfefr
dh mDr ;kstuk ds l`tu ds laca/k esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu jftLVj]
lnL;rk jftLVj] dk;Zokgh jftLVj vkWfMV fjiksVZ ,oa mDr
tkap ls lacaf/kr ewy nLrkost ,oa izfr;ka tks vko’;d gks
miyC/k djkus ckcr i= fy[kk x;k ftlds izfr mÙkj esa
volk;d tokgjiqjh Hkou lgdkjh lfefr fy- ,oa mi
jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;ka] t;iqj ‘kgj }kjk voxr djk;k
x;k gS fd mDr lfefr fnukad 11-01-2004 dks volk;u ds
i’pkr mDr lfefr esa fu;qDr iz’kkld ,oa lekidksa }kjk
lfefr ls fjdksMZ izkfIr gsrq vusdksa i= fy[ks x;s ,oa lfefr esa
fu;qDr lekid Jh lqjsUnz Bsuqvk us 27-11-2014 dks lfefr ds
fjdksMZ izkfIr gsrq ,d ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djok;h xbZA ftlesa
iqfyl }kjk fnukad 29-05-2015 dks ,Q-vkj- yxk nh xbZA
ftldh izksVsLV fizfV’ku rrle; ds volk;d Jh eqds’k dqekj
}kjk fnukad 30-10-2017 dks fjdksMZ izkfIr gsrq yxkbZ xbZA vkt
rd miyC/k fjdkWMZ ds vuqlkj mDr lfefr ds ewy fjdksMZ
lfefr ds iwoZ inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls izkIr ugha gqvk gSa] fjdkWMZ izkfIr
dh dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA mDr lfefr dk fjdkWMZ izkIr gksus
ds i’pkr pkgh xbZ lwpuk miyC/k djokbZ tkosxhA
¼layXu&1½
vr% dk’rdkjksa o lfefr ds e/; 31-07-1981 esa gq, ewy
bdjkjukek miyC/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k rFkk lfefr }kjk
;kstuk ds l`tu laca/kh Hkw[k.M jftLVj] lnL;rk jftLVj]
dk;Zokgh jftLVj miyC/k ugha gksusa ds dkj.k bdjkjukesa dh
(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (41 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

oS/krk o ;kstuk ds l`tu ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh fVIi.kh
fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr ugha gSA
bl laca/k esa {ks=h; vads{k.k vf/kdkjh ls izkIr vkWfMV
fjiksVZ o”kZ 1 tqykbZ] 1981 ls 30-06-1982 rd dh vkWfMV
fjiksVZ esa Jhjke dkWyksuh&ch ds l`tu ds laca/k esa o lfefr o
dk’rdkjksa ds e/; fu”ikfnr bdjkjukesa dk mYys[k ugha gSA
orZeku esa bl laca/k {ks=h; vads{k.k vf/kdkjh t;iqj ds
dk;kZy; esa rr~le; gq, vkWfMV o”kZ 1979&1980] 1980&1981]
1981&1982 rd ds vkWfMV fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;k tks
fd orZeku esa miyC/k ,d ek= izkekf.kd fjdkWMZ gSA o”kZ
1982&1983 o o”kZ 1983&1984 o vkxs dh vkWfMV fjiksVZ
{ks=h; vads{k.k vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; i=koyh ds vuqlkj
vads{k.k ugha gksus ds dkj.k miyc/k ugha gSA
tokgjiqjh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr ds o”kZ
1979&1980 dh vkWfMV fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkWfMV vof/k ds
lfefr }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij 4 Ldhesa vkSj vkoafVr
dh xbZ tks fuEu izdkj gS& ¼layXu&2½
1- Jhjke dkWyksuh&jkeuxj lksMkyk
2- fo’o uxj] U;w lkaxkusj jksM
3- uUniqjh dkWyksuh] fot;egy vkesj jksM
4- ‘kkjnk dkWyksuh] [kkrhiqjk fDoUl jksM
rFkk vkWfMV vof/k rd dqy 7 ;kstukvksa ds Hkwfe Ø; dk
fooj.k izkIr gS ftlesa ls fuEu 3 ;kstuk,a iwoZ dh gS&
1- guqeku okfVdk] xaxkiksy xsV ds ckgj
2- xksfoUn okfVdk] fnYyh ckbZikl jksM
3- lhrkjke dkWyksuh] lksMkyk
tokgjiqjh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr ds o”kZ
1980&1981 dh vkWfMV fjiksVZ esa lfefr dk Hkwfe lacaf/k fooj.k
30-06-1981 rd dqy 16 ;kstukvksa dk crk;k x;k gSA
¼layXu&2 v½
(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (42 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

1- t; guqeku okfVdk] enuiqjk
2- xksfoUn okfVdk] enuiqjk
3- ‘kkjnk dkWyksuh] [kkrhiqjk
4- uUniqjh dkWyksuh] fot;egy
5- Jhjke dkWyksuh] lksMkyk
6- lhrkjke dkWyksuh] lksMkyk
7- ‘;ke dkWyksuh] lqjtiqjk ?kkVh
8- t;Urh uxj] cxjkuk
9- fo’o uxj] lksMkyk
10- t;flag uxj] fd’kux<
11- t;flag uxj] ekyiqjlMok
12- t;Hkksys ekdsZV] cx:

13- vkpk;Z fouksckHkkos uxj] [kkrhiqjk
14- t; vEcs dkWyksuh] cx:

15- xksikyuxj] ykyokl
16- izLrkfor vLrj dkWyksuh] ykyokl
tkap ls lacaf/kr o”kZ 1981&1982 ds vkWfMV fjiksVZ dk
voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlds vkWfMVj Jh ghjkyky oekZ FksA
vkWfMV fjiksVZ esa mYys[k gS fd lfefr dk ;g vkWfMV o”kZ
1981&1982 gS] tks fnukad 14-06-1983 ds izkjEHk fd;k tkdj
fnukad 16-06-1983 dks lekIr fd;k x;kA ¼layXu&2 c½
vkWfMV fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj izcU/kdkfj.kh lfefr dk
fuokZpu fnukad 9-2-1979 dks gqvk FkkA ftlds fuEukafdr
lnL; gS&
1- Jh ckcwyky v/;{k
2- Jh enuflag mik/;{k
3- xksikyyky ea=h
4- Jh dUgS;kyky dks”kk/;{k
5- Jh rqylhjke lnL;

6- Jh xaxklgk; lnL;

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (43 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

7- Jh nsokjke lnL;

8- Jh txjkeflag lnL;

9- Jh Hkwjkjke lnL;

vkWfMVj us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd lfefr dk leLr
fjdksMZ dk;kZy; esa lqjf{kr gSA ijUrq lfefr }kjk fu;ekuqlkj
izksiVhZ jftLVj] Ldhe okbZl Hkw[k.M vkoafVr jftLVj] fgLlk
jftLVj vkfn ugha cuk;s x;s gS] ftUgsa vkjEHk dj iw.kZ j[kk
tkosa bl vkWfMV fjiksVZ esa lfefr }kjk fdlh Jhjke
dkWyksuh&ch ds l`tu dk mYys[k gksuk ugha ik;k tkrkA ijUrq
fuEukafdr dkWyksfu;ksa ds Hkw[k.M fcØh ls lacaf/kr fooj.k dk
mYys[k gS tks fuEukafdr gS&
Ø- la- Ldhe dk ukeHkw[k.M fcØh Hkw[k.M fcØh ‘ks”k uke ‘ks”k tek
isVs tek dh isVs okil
xbZ jkf’k dh xbZ jkf’k
1- t; guqeku okfVdk 4284-00 7625-28 3341-28 &
2- xksfoUn okfVdk 33090-00 27790-00 & 5300-00
3- Jhjke dkWyksuh 275012-00 6112-00 & 268900-00
4- lhrkjke dkWyksuh 28351-50 23724-50 & 4627-00
5- jkeuxj ,DlVsa’ku 10600-00 & & 10600-00
6- ‘;ke dkWyksuh 328059-00 6220-00 & 321839-80
7- t;Urh uxj 13400-00 & & 13400-00
8- fo’ouxj & 5515-50 5515-50 &
9- t; flag uxj 197943-00 21020-00 & 176923-50
10- t;flaguxj 44080-00 & & 44080-00
,DlVsa’ku
11- vkpk;Zfouksck 503217-25 & & 503217-25
Hkkosuxj
12- lar lqUnj nkl 92554-92 1000-00 & 91554-87
uxj
1530592-92 99007-28 8856-78 1440442-42

blds vfrfjDr bl vkWfMV fjiksVZ esa Jhjke dkWyksuh&ch
ls lacaf/kr Hkwfe [kjhn ckcr lfefr ,oa dk’rdkjksa ds e/;
gq, bdjkjukesa laca/kh dksbZ nLrkost dk mYys[k ugha gSA

;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; loksZP; U;k;ky;
ds Lis’ky yho fifV’ku flfoy uEcj 6944 vkWQ 2010
f’kd;rdrkZ egewn vkye ls lacaf/kr ;kfpdk ds isftax
Øekad 722613] 722619] 722614] 722612 o 722576 ij
f’kdk;rdrkZ egewn vkye ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds
le{k i{kdkj Fks ftlesa buds }kjk fnukad 31-07-1981 dks
dk’rdkjksa o lfefr ds chp fu”ikfnr bdjkjukesa dks pqukSrh
nh xbZA ¼layXu&3] 4] 5] 6] 7½
ftl ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fuEukafdr
fu.kZ; fn;k x;k&¼layXu&8½
Applications for intervention/impleadment are
rejected.

We do not find any legal and valid ground for
interference. The special Leave Petition and all
pending applications are dismissed.

mDr ;kstuk dh Hkwfe ds ewy dk’rdjksa }
kjk Jh izHkqn;ky eksnh dks fnukad 10-01-2017 dks fn;s x;s
eq[;R;kjukek dh oS/krk rFkk Jhjke dkyksuh&ch ds lt`u ij
mldk izHkkoA
rF;kRed fooj.k%& Jh izHkqn;ky eksnh ds }kjk fnukad 10-01-
2017 ds eq[;R;kjukek dh oS/krk dk iz’u gS] ds lanHkZ esa er
gS fd&
1- Jh eksnh }kjk izLrqr eq[;R;kjukek dh oS/krk dk ijh{k.k
tkap desVh {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs gSA vr% bl laca/k esa fdlh Hkh
izdkj dh fVIi.kh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA
mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds isftax
Øekad 722577 ds vuqlkj [kkrsnkjksa ds }kjk Jh izHkqn;ky
eksnh dks fn;s x;s ikWoj vkQW vVksuh fnukad 10-01-2017 ds
vk/kkj ij i{kdkj ds :i esa Jh izHkqn;ky eksnh ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; esa is’k gq, Fks ftls ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA ¼layXu&9½
(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (45 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

3- lfefr dh ;kstuk Jhjke dkWyksuh&ch ds lfefr ds
inkf/kdkfj;ksa] iz’kkld ,oa volk;d }kjk tkjh
iV~Vksa@MqIyhdsV iV~Vksa ds laca/k esa fofHkUu tkapksa ds ek/;e ls
gq, fu.kZ;ksa dh ikyuk rFkk ;kstuk esa QthZ@dwVjfpr iV~Vksa
ds ek/;e ls voS/k dCtksa dh jksdFkke gsrq lq>koA
rF;kRed fooj.k%& tokgjiqjh Hkou fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr
fy-] t;iqj dh ;kstuk Jhjke dkWyksuh] Vksad jksM+] t;iqj ds
laca/k esa jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh
/kkjk&55 dh foLr`r tkap ,oa /kkjk&55¼5½ ds rgr rRdkyhu
jftLVªkj] lgdkfjrk }kjk fnukad 05-12-2005 dks tkjh
ifj.kke ftldh ikyuk jktLFkku dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh ,DV
2001 dh /kkjk 64 ,oa jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslk;Vh fu;e
2003 ds fu;e 81 ds rgr lfefr ds volk;d ds }kjk
lEikfnr dh tkuh gSA
voS/k dCtksa o fu.kZ; dh jksdFkke gsrq volk;d vius Lrj
ij ts-Mh-,-] iqfyl&iz’kklu ds lkFk leUo; LFkkfir dj
vko’;d dk;Zokgh lEikfnr djsaA
4- lfefr dh ;kstuk Jhjke dkWyksuh&ch ds laca/k esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 09-10-2018 dh vuqikyuk
gsrq dk;Z;kstukA
rF;kRed fooj.k%& mDr [email protected]; esa volk;d]
tokgjiqjh Hkou fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fy- o lgdkfjrk
foHkkx i{kdkj ugha FksA mDr vkns’k esa jktLFkku vkoklu
e.My dks funsZf’kr fd;k x;k gS fd og viuh tek jkf’k
flfoy tt] t;iqj ‘kgj t;iqj ls C;kt lfgr izkIr djsA
vr% mDr fu.kZ; dh vuqikyuk jktLFkku gkmflax cksMZ }kjk
dh tkuh gSA
5- mDr Hkwfe ij vukf/kd`r vfrØe.k dks jksdus dh
dk;ZokghA

rF;kRed fooj.k%& mDr laca/k esa voS/k o vukf/kd`r
vfrØe.k dks jksdus ,oa rksMus dh dk;Zokgh ts-Mh-,- Lrj ls
laikfnr dh tkuh gSA bl laca/k esa volk;d vius Lrj ij
ts-Mh-,- ls leUo; dj vko’;d dk;Zokgh djsA”

27. The material facts which came out in the inquiry

report are that no any residential scheme in the name of

Shree Ram Colony-B was floated by the Jawaharpuri Bhawan

Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited prior to acquisition of the

land because in the list of residential schemes which were

floated by the Society, as submitted to the JDA, the name of

Shree Ram Colony-B does not find mention. The members of

the Vikas Samiti are taking shelter of the Colony named as

Shree Ram Colony but that too is in the area of Sodala and

not at the land in question and also the name of that

residential scheme is Shree Ram Colony, whereas the alleged

scheme is Shree Ram Colony-B at B2 Bypass and no report of

the society finds mention of floating of Shree Ram Colony-B

prior to acquisition of the land in question.

28. Senior Counsel appearing for the Housing Society

also submitted that no any record as regards the floating of

the residential scheme in the name of Shree Ram Colony-B

was handed over by the erstwhile office bearers. It is also

very surprising that the petitioners therein while filing CWP

No.3064/1996 did not care to implead the khatedars or

Jawaharpuri Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (housing

society) as party to the litigation and this non-impleadment of

the necessary and proper party in that earlier writ petition

clearly reflects that the petitioners therein tried to hide the

material facts from the Court and they succeeded in the same

and this act of the petitioners therein can be safely held to be

fraud and misrepresentation while obtaining the judgment

and order dated 12.02.2002. Senior Counsel also says that

there is no record available with the Society as regards the

alleged Shree Ram Colony ‘B’. This submission on behalf of

the Society substantiates the act of fraud and

misrepresentation.

29. Now the issue is ‘Whether the fraud and

misrepresentation, as said to have been committed by the

petitioners therein in CWP No.3064/1996, has been taken

care of at any stage upto the Hon’ble Apex court in the earlier

round of litigation? Senior Counsel appearing for the private

petitioners and the Vikas Samiti submitted that the complaint

was submitted by one Mr. Mohammad Alam who was

impleaded as a party respondent in the Special Leave to

Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court which shows that the

alleged fraud and misrepresentation has been taken care of

by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the SLP filed by

the RHB. Senior Counsel appearing for the RHB and so also

the counsel appearing for Mr. Mohammad Alam submitted

that the alleged fraud and misrepresentation which has since

been proved in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry

Committee constituted by the Cooperative Society

Department but same has not been taken care of and

considered at any stage as none of the orders passed by any

Court find reference of such alleged and proved fraud and

misrepresentation and conclusion of the Inquiry Committee.

30. On perusal of the orders passed on 12.02.2002, the

order passed by Hon’ble the Division Bench on 05.01.2010

and the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and further the order dated 21.01.2019 in the review

petition, no any factual or observatory findings are there as

regards alleged and proved fraud and misrepresentation and

therefore, it can be said that the alleged fraud and

misrepresentation held on the part of the petitioners in CWP

No.3064/1996 were not considered and no any observations

and findings have been given by any Court.

31. The petitioners in SBCW P. Nos. 336/2019,

13563/2019 and 16978/2019 are claiming the rights over the

land in question on the basis and consequences of alleged

agreement to sale dated 31.07.1981 and 31.07.1986, said to

have been executed by the khatedars in favour of

Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Whether

any party who is said to have purchased the immovable

property by way of an agreement to sale can claim title over

the said property merely on the basis of agreement to sale

without there being any registered sale deed or any decree of

specific performance of such agreement to sale?

32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh

Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Another,

reported in 2025 SC OnLine SC 1879 while framing an

issue “Whether the impugned documents, i.e. Agreement to

Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt of Consideration and

the registered Will, allegedly entered into, would confer a

valid title over the suit property?, the answered question is as

under:-

“Agreement of Sale

12. The Transfer of immovable property inter vivos is
governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(hereinafter referred to as “the TP Act“). Section 5 of
the said TP Act defines “transfer of property” as
follows:

“5. ‘Transfer of property’ defined. –In the
following sections ‘transfer of property’ means an
act by which a living person conveys property, in
present or in future, to one or more other living
persons, or to himself or to himself and one or
more other living persons and ‘to transfer property’
is to perform such act.”

13. The TP Act envisages five different modes for
transferring a property but for the purpose of the
present appeal we are only concerned with one of the
modes i.e., by way of “Sale” and the same is dealt
under section 54 of the TP Act which defines “sale”
and a “contract for sale” as follows:

“54. ‘Sale’ defined. — ‘Sale’ is a transfer of
ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised
or part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made. –Such transfer, in the case of
tangible immovable property of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (50 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

reversion or other intangible thing, can be made
only by a registered instrument.

In the case of tangible immovable property of a
value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer
may be made either by a registered instrument or
by delivery of the property.

Delivery of tangible immovable property takes
place when the seller places the buyer, or such
person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale. –A contract for the sale of
immovable property is a contract that a sale of
such property shall take place on terms settled
between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or
charge on such property.”

14. Perusal of above said provisions lays down a
specific mode of execution of sale deed with respect
to immovable property for concluding the sale of a
property. In sale for an immovable property the
value of which exceeds Rs. 100/-, the three
requirements of law are that the transfer of property
of sale must take place through a validly executed
sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly
attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in
writing, attested and registered, the transaction
cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the
property will not be transferred.

15. There is a difference between a sale deed and an
agreement for sale, or a contract for sale. A contract
for sale of immovable property is a contract that a
sale of such property shall take place on terms
settled between the parties. While a sale is a transfer
of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a
document creating a right to obtain another
document, namely a registered sale deed to complete
the transaction of sale of an immovable property.
Section 54 in its definition of sale does not include an
agreement of sale and neither confers any
proprietary rights in favour of the transferee nor by
itself create any interest or charge in the property. If
after entering into a contract for sale of property, the
seller without any reasonable excuse avoids
executing a sale deed, the buyer can proceed to file a
suit for specific performance of the contract.

16. The scope of an agreement for sale has been
highlighted by this court in the case of Suraj Lamp
(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (51 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v.
State of Haryana, wherein this Court observed that:

“16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a
contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does
not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on
such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v.
S.A. Kamtam, [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed:

“32. A contract of sale does not of itself create
any interest in, or charge on, the property. This
is expressly declared in Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad
v. Ram Mohit Hazra, [AIR 1967 SC 744]). The
fiduciary character of the personal obligation
created by a contract for sale is recognised in
Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in
Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal
obligation created by a contract of sale is
described in Section 40 of the Transfer of
Property Act as an obligation arising out of
contract and annexed to the ownership of
property, but not amounting to an interest or
easement therein.

33. In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with
reference to the word ‘convey’. … The word
‘conveys’ in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property
Act is used in the wider sense of conveying
ownership.

***

37. … that only on execution of conveyance,
ownership passes from one party to another….”

17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji
Dhotra, [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held:

“10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of
the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield
only against the transferor. It disentitles the
transferor from disturbing the possession of the
proposed transferee who is put in possession in
pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing
to do with the ownership of the proposed
transferor who remains full owner of the property
till it is legally conveyed by executing a
registered sale deed in favour of the transferee.
Such a right to protect possession against the
proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service
against a third party.”

18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable
property by way of sale can only be by a deed of
conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed
of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as
required by law), no right, title or interest in an
immovable property can be transferred.

19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which
is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of
sale) would fall short of the requirements of
Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer
any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable
property (except to the limited right granted under
Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP
Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession
or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section
54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable
property can be made only by a registered
instrument and an agreement of sale does not
create any interest or charge on its subject-
matter.”

17. In the instant matter, undisputedly plaintiff
claims that there is only an agreement to sell, and
there is no sale deed executed in his favour by the
father. As per the settled position of law, this
document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff
as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of
the TP Act. At best, it only enables the plaintiff to
seek for specific performance for the execution of a
sale deed and does not create an interest or charge
on the suit property.”

33. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, as quoted above, the plot holders cannot claim title

over the land in question which already stands acquired.

34. In view of the discussions as regards both the

issues, as formulated by this Court, the Court is of the

opinion that:-

(a) the judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 3064/1996 is vitiated being obtained by

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5312] (53 of 54) [CW-336/2019]

fraud and misrepresentation and therefore the same is

declared as undone and held to be not enforceable. The

acquisition proceedings for the land in question are declared

as stand concluded in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board

who may proceed further in accordance with law and the

khatedars would be at liberty to receive the compensation

amount as has already been deposited by the Rajasthan

Housing Board with the Civil Court; and

(b) In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. (supra),

the agreement to sale dated 31.07.1981 is declared as void

ab initio and non-executable as no any decree for specific

performance has been passed by the competent court for the

same.

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.15576/2019 filed

by the Rajasthan Housing Board is allowed as above. The Writ

Petition Nos. 336/2019 & 13563/2019- both filed by

petitioners namely; Jyoti Sejwani and Suresh Chand Pal and

the Writ Petition No. 16978/2019 filed by petitioner- Shree

Ram Colony ‘B’ Vikas Samiti are dismissed being devoid of

merits.

36. In view of the order passed in the main petition,

the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also

stand disposed of.

37. The Registry to place a copy of this order in the

connected case files.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma NK/Joint Registrar

(D.B. SAW/416/2022 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon10/04/2026
(Downloaded 04/07/2026atat01:54:42
10:03:18PM)
PM)

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur