Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Metrocity Vikas Samiti vs Mahesh Kumar Jain S/O. Maliram Jain on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:6935]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740/2022
Metrocity Vikas Samiti, Through President, Gajanand Verma,
Resident Of E-38, Ram Nagar Extension, Hawa Sadak, Sodala,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o Maliram Jain, Resident Of
13/1032, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Dhanna Lal Raiger S/o Ramdev, Aged About 85 Years,
Resident Of Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Mangyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
4. Ramratan S/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Mangyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
5. Ramavtar S/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal Raigar, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Mangyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
6. Pooran Mal S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About 58 Years,
Resident Of Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Mangyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9002/2023
Hari Narain Sharma S/o Shri Ram Bux Sharma, Aged About 79
Years, Resident Of 91, Sooraj Nagar (East) Civil Lines, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
2. Metro Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Gajanand
Verma, Resident Of E-38, Ram Nagar Vistar, Hawa Sadak,
Sodala, Jaipur.
3. Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mali Ram Jain, Resident Of
13/1032, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (2 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3691/2022
Metrocity Vikas Samiti, Through President, Gajanand Verma,
Resident Of E-38, Ram Nagar Extension, Hawa Sadak, Sodala,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o. Maliram Jain, Resident Of
13/1032, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6754/2022
Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mali Ram Jain, R/o 13/1032 Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6768/2022
Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mali Ram Jain, R/o 13/1032
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Metrocity Vikas Samiti, Through President Gajanand
Verma, R/o E-38, Ramnagar Vistar Hawasadak, Sodala,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri with
Mr. Ayush Sharma,
Mr. Dharma Ram and
Ms. Nandini Mirdha for JDA
Mr. R.K.Daga with
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (3 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan in CWP
No.3740/2022
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.
with
Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma and
Ms. Khushboo Rathore in CWP
No.9002/2023
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ashish Sharma in CWP
No.3691/2022
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sandeep Pathak,
Mr. Manish Bhadiwal and
Mr. Pramod Singh for respondent No.1
in all the petitions
Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Yashodhar Pandey,
Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma and
Mr. Rahul Vishnoi in CWP
No.3740/2022 for respondent No.2 to
5
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Arguments concluded on ::: February 11, 2026
Reserved on ::: February 11, 2026
Pronounced on ::: February 26, 2026
1. Since the issue involved in all these five writ
petitions is identical and the impugned order is same, hence
all these five writ petitions are being decided by a common
order.
2. The facts which emerges from the pleadings are
that the original appellant-Mahesh Kumar Jain filed four
different appeals before the Appellate Authority, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal,
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (4 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
JDA') mentioning therein that Khasra Nos. 92, 94, 95, 100
and 104/572 situated at Village Mangyawas, Tehsil Sanganer,
belong to Shri. Prabhu and Shri Dhanna both sons of Shri
Ramdev. The suit property was Khatedari land of Prabhu and
Dhanna. On 28.06.1991, the Jaipur Development Authority
(for short, 'the JDA') acquired the said land and the award
with regard to the land situated in aforementioned Khasras
was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.06.1991.
On 13.12.1995 the aforesaid Khatedars and
Roopwas Model Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti entered into an
agreement for sale with respect to the aforesaid property for
developing a housing society in the name and style of
Metrocity Vikas Samiti. In the said agreement it was agreed
that the aforesaid Khatedars will cooperate with the society
for ensuring that the aforesaid property will be transferred in
the name of the society as per law. At the time of signing of
the agreement the Vikas Samiti paid the consideration
amount and issued receipt to the Khatedars and physical
possession of the said property was also handed over to the
Vikas Samiti.
On 10.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed
an agreement in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Jain with
regard to the aforesaid property. As per the agreement, the
Khatedars have to execute a General Power of Attorney in
favour of Mahesh Kumar Jain to enable him to obtain
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (5 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
necessary approval from the JDA on behalf of the Khatedars.
In furtherance of the aforesaid agreement, a General Power
of Attorney was also executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar
Jain by the recorded Khatedars.
On 11.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed a
compromise / agreement in favour of the JDA in order to
obtain 15% developed land in lieu of compensation for the
acquired land.
On 02.08.2002 the JDA issued a reservation letter
for 15 % developed land in lieu of compensation in favour of
aforesaid Khatedars.
On 19.08.2002 the recorded Khatedars through a
registered letter cancelled the Power of Attorney dated
12.08.2002. An information with regard to cancellation was
also published in the newspaper.
On 03.09.2002 Mahesh Kumar Jain obtained
unregistered lease for 15 % developed land allotted to the
recorded Khatedars against the acquisition of the aforesaid
property.
On 01.02.2003 Mahesh Kumar Jain sent a
registered notice to the recorded Khatedars for execution of
the lease deed in his favour stating that in case they fail to
execute the sale deed in his favour, he shall file a suit for
specific performance. The aforesaid Khatedars on 22.02.2003
sent reply to the legal notice dated 01.02.2003 denying
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (6 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
therein that there is no requirement for execution of the lease
deed sought by Mahesh Kumar Jain as the agreement dated
10.04.2002 is not valid and is forged one.
On 21.10.2005 the Vikas Samiti entered into a
further agreement with the recorded Khatedars for purchase
of the aforesaid land. The agreement clearly states that the
same was executed in furtherance of the agreement dated
13.12.1995. The Vikas Samiti in furtherance of the
agreements developed the housing society and issued
allotment letters to several individuals.
On 23.09.2002 the acquisition for the purposes of
development of Prithvi Raj Nagar was cancelled. The said
cancellation was on account of order dated 20.09.2013.
To regularize the land allotted to its members, the
JDA issued public Notifications dated 04.06.2020, 15.06.2020
and 08.07.2020 which were challenged by Mahesh Kumar
Jain in the appeals filed by him before the JDA Appellate
Tribunal.
The JDA Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated
03.02.2022 allowed the appeals filed by Mahesh Kumar Jain
against JDA and Vikas Samiti and set aside the public notice
dated 27.04.2015 whereby the lease deeds were issued in
the name of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain, so also the public
notices dated 23.06.2015 and 11.03.2020 issued by the JDA
for holding camps for regularization and so also the public
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (7 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
notices dated 27.04.2015 and 04.06.2020. The JDA Appellate
Tribunal also set aside the order dated 27/29.04.2015
whereby the lease-deeds of plots No.B-503 and B-168 to B-
175 were cancelled and directed the JDA to hand over the
possession of 1.24 hectare land of the same value in any
approved Scheme to the respondent/ appellant.
3. Mr. R.K. Daga counsel appearing for the petitioner
in SBCWP No. 3740/2022 submitted that the Appellate
Tribunal, JDA has over looked many material facts. He
submitted that the original khatedars said to have executed a
Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain for the
limited purpose. The Power of Attorney dated 10.04.2002 was
for seeking patta in the name of the khatedars for 15%
developed land in lieu of their land which has been acquired
but Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain has obtained the unregistered
lease deeds on 03.09.2002 in his own name, whereas even
the said Power of Attorney was also cancelled by the
Khatedars on 19.08.2002 and a registered letter was also
sent to Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain and there was a public notice
in the newspaper to that effect but even then he proceeded
to obtain the unregistered lease deeds without any authority.
Counsel further submitted that de-acquisition of the land
acquired was made on 23.09.2002 and Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Jain sent a legal notice to the Khatedars on 01.02.2003 for
executing the sale deeds and also stated that in case the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (8 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
Khatedars fail to executed the sale deeds, he shall file a suit
for specific performance. Meaning-thereby, till 01.02.2003 Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Jain was not having any right over the land in
question. Counsel further submitted that a criminal case was
also lodged against Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain and when he
preferred a criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC,
the khatedars submitted an affidavit that they have no
concern with Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain as regards the land in
question. He further submitted that the alleged unregistered
lease deeds dated 03.09.2002 were cancelled by the JDA as
they were not in accordance with law. Counsel further
submitted that the document on the basis of which Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Jain is claiming the rights over the land in
question, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
report about the signatures of the Khatedars and a report
was received that the signatures of the khatedars on such
documents are forged. It has also been submitted by the
counsel that non-impleadment of khatedars in the appeal
filed by Mahesh Kumar Jain before the JDA speaks of his ill
intention. He also submitted that the khatedars at various
stages have mentioned the fact that they have sold the land
to Roopwas Model Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti for a
residential scheme.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
SBCWP No. 9002/2003 in addition to the submissions made
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (9 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
by the counsel for the petitioner in SBCWP No. 3740/2022,
has submitted that the khatedars sold their land to Roopwas
Model Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and thereafter the
Society has developed the Metrocity Residential Scheme,
wherein the petitioner has also been allotted a plot and he is
entitled for regularization of the plot and possession. Counsel
also submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the
Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules,
1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’), the lease deeds should
have been stamped and registered. He further submitted that
the alleged lease deeds in favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain
are unregistered and he cannot claim any right on the basis
of such unregistered lease deeds.
5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Ashish Sharma in SBCWP No.3691/2022 appearing for the
petitioner in addition to the arguments submitted by the
counsel appearing for the petitioners in earlier two petitions
submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, has taken a
contrary view as regards application of section 42B of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) as
the original khatedars belong to the Scheduled Caste
Category. He submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is that
the Society is not Member of the Scheduled Caste Category
and the transfer of the land by the original khatedars in
favour of the Society is hit by section 42B of the Rajasthan
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (10 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
Tenancy Act but on the other hand has failed to notice that
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is also not a member of the Schedule
Caste Category in relation to whom the Tribunal has not
made any observation as regards the prohibition of section
42B of the Act of 1955. He further submitted that the view of
the Tribunal is contrary for two similarly situated parties. He
also submitted that an FIR was also registered against Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Jain, wherein the police after investigation
submitted the charge-sheet and the cognizance has been
taken against him as regards the allegations of forgery. He
further submitted that the Power of Attorney on the basis of
which Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is claiming the rights over the
land, has already been cancelled by the khatedars in view of
the forgery committed by him. He has also referred the reply
submitted by the JDA wherein the JDA has admitted this fact
that the JDA has issued the public notice for regularization of
the land in question to the plot-holders treating it to be the
government land as no-one can made claim over the land in
question as any transfer of the land in the name of any
person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste Category
is prohibited in view of section 42B of the Act of 1955.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the JDA in SBCWP
No. 6754/2022 additionally submitted that the order of the
Appellate Tribunal, JDA, is without jurisdiction as Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Jain is claiming rights for the acquired land of the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (11 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
khatedars. He further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal,
JDA, has no authority to adjudicate the validity of the
agreements. It is also submitted by the counsel that the
Appellate Tribunal, JDA has no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal as regards the acquired land as the acquired land is
not covered under section 54 of the Jaipur Development
Authority Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act of 1982’). It is also
submitted by the counsel appearing for the JDA that the JDA
has proceeded for regularization of the land in the name of
the plot holders in view of various circulars issued by the
State Government. He has also submitted that the JDA has
failed to consider the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC and the fact that the khatedars who are the necessary
parties, have not been impleaded as party respondents in the
appeal filed by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain and therefore, the
appeal should have been dismissed for non-joinder of the
necessary party. It is further submitted by the counsel
appearing for the JDA that in lieu of the acquired land of the
khatedars, a reservation letter was issued in the name of the
khatedars only. He has also referred Rule 20 of the Rules of
1974 and further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule
26 of the Rules of 1974, the lease deed, which is not
registered, is not admissible in evidence. He has also referred
Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 as regards the regularization
and further submitted that the khatedars have never objected
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (12 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
the act of the JDA for proceedings of regularization of the
plots in favour of plot-holders.
7. Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Yashodhar Pandey, Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma and Mr. Rahul
Vishnoi, in SBCWP No. 3740/2022 appearing for the
respondents No.3 to 6, who have been arrayed as
respondents vide order dated 03.04.2024 on an application
filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC submitted that the
alleged lease deeds were sought by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain
on the basis of forged consent letter. He further submitted
that on the one hand Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain said to have
obtained the lease deeds on 03.09.2002 on the basis of the
consent letters of the khatedars but on the other hand he is
also serving a legal notice to the khatedars on 01.02.2003 for
a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated
10.04.2002, which clearly speaks in volume about the forgery
committed by him in getting unregistered lease deeds of the
land of the khatedars. He submitted that if Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Jain was legally issued the lease deeds on 03.09.2002 then
what was the occasion for him to serve a legal notice for suit
for specific agreement of the contract agreement dated
10.04.2002 which shows that the alleged lease deeds are
forged and invalid. He further submitted that in response to
the legal notice dated 01.02.2003, the khatedars replied and
denied the fact of the agreement. He also referred that in the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (13 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
appeal Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain has not challenged the order
of the cancellation of the lease deeds but only has challenged
the public notice issued by the JDA for regularization. It is
also submitted that the khatedars have also received the
consideration for the land in question.
8. Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep
Pathak, Mr. Manish Bhadiwal and Mr. Pramod Singh appearing
for Mahesh Kumar Jain submitted that the land was acquired
in the year 1991 and by an agreement dated 13.12.1995 the
khatedars alleged to have sold the land to the Roopwas Model
Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti but the said agreement is
notarized by one Mr. Anil Kumar Jain who on the said date
was not appointed as a Notary Public. He further submitted
that the another agreement is said to have been executed on
21.10.2005 in favour of the Samiti which is also notarized by
the same Notary Public Mr. Anil Kumar Jain. He submitted
that Mr. Anil Kumar Jain became Notary Public on
11.05.2004. He submitted that it seems that the first
agreement is an agreement prepared in a back date. It is also
submitted by the counsel appearing for Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Jain that the Metrocity Vikas Samiti has been constituted in
the year 2017 and therefore, the said Vikas Samiti has no
locus to file the petition. He further submitted that in a public
notice dated 27.04.2015 the name of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain
appears as lease deed holder. He has also submitted that the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (14 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
original khatedars executed a Power of Attorney and so also
the agreement. He further submitted that the original
khatedars have given a consent letter in favour of Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Jain for receiving the lease deeds for the land in
question. Counsel also submitted that this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India has limited scope.
9. Considered the submissions made by the counsels
appearing for the respective parties and also perused the
material available on record.
10. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is said to have obtained the
alleged lease deeds dated 03.09.2002 which are unregistered
and on the basis of alleged Power of Attorney dated
02.08.2002 and the consent letter dated NIL. It has come on
regord that the alleged Power of Attorney dated 10.04.2002
(Annex.4 in CWP No.3740/2022) was cancelled on
19.08.2002 for which a registered letter was sent to him and
a notice was also published in the newspapers (Annex.9 in
CWP No.3740/2022). Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain also said to
have issued a legal notice to the khatedars for execution of
the lease deeds and for specific performance of the
agreement dated 10.04.2002 and the said notice was replied
by the khatedars denying the agreement. Once the Power of
Attorney, said to have been executed by the khatedars in
favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain, has been cancelled and
lateron he has also issued a legal notice on 01.02.2003 as
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (15 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
regards the performance of the agreement dated 10.04.2002,
it could not be believed in a normal circumstances that some
lease deed was already issued in his favour on 03.09.2002
because if any lease deed has been issued in his favour then
there was no occasion for him to issue a legal notice for
specific performance of the agreement and creates doubt
about the authenticity of the lease deeds dated 03.09.2002
and thus, the JDA rightly cancelled the lease deeds.
11. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is said to have obtained the
unregistered lease deeds on the basis of the consent letters
of the khatedars. It has come on record that the signatures
on the alleged consent letters have been found to be forged
when they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
verification. The lease deeds on the basis of which Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Jain is claiming the rights are dated 03.09.2002 and
they are unregistered. As per provisions of Rule 26 of the
Rules of 1974, the lease deeds must be registered.
12. Rules 20, 26 and 31 of the Rules of 1974 are
quoted as under:-
“20. Grant of sale deed. – Sale deed for the land
shall be executed by the Municipal
Board/Council/Corporation when the purchaser
allottee, deposit the full cost of land. The
possession of the land shall be handed over only
when sale deed has been issued to the
purchaser/allottee by the concerned Municipality.
26. Documentary evidence of transfer of land.
– For every transfer of land and conversion of
tenure and status of land from lease hold basis to(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (16 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]free hold basis under these rules a document
evidencing the same shall be prepared in
appropriate form, as may be specified by the State
Government on the Stamps provided by the
allottee, purchaser or person who has applied for
conversion of status of land, which shall be signed
for and on behalf of the Governor of the State by
the Chairperson and Executive Officer of the Board.
The deed so executed shall be got registered, at the
expenses of the person in whose favour such deed
is executed, within four months of execution of such
deed.
31. Sale or disposal of Municipal land. – The
procedure for sale or disposal of municipal or other
lands vesting in or belonging to the Board not
covered by these rules shall be the same as
provided under these rules.”
In view of the aforesaid rules, the alleged lease
deeds on the basis of which Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is
claiming his rights, cannot be said to be the legally valid
evidence for the same.
13. The facts on record of the case speak that the land
was acquired and there was a Power of Attorney executed by
the khatedars in favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain. The scope
of the Power of Attorney was not to make transfer of land in
his name or to get the lease deeds of the land in favour of
him. After acquisition of the land of the khatedars, a
reservation letter for 15% developed land was issued in
favour of the khatedars and the lease deeds of the said land
could only be issued in favour of the khatedars but in the
present case Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is said to have obtained
the unregistered lease deeds in his name of the land for
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (17 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
which the reservation letter was issued by the JDA in the
names of the khatedars on the basis of the alleged consent
letter of the khatedars. The signatures of the khatedars on
the alleged consent letter have been found to be forged.
14. No law permits transfer of land or the property
other than the mode specified in the Jaipur Development
Authority Act of 1982 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or
any other law. In the present case, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain,
got the unregistered lease deeds in his favour of the land for
which a reservation letter was issued in the names of the
khatedars and this kind of transfer is not permissible.
15. The learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA, has not
accepted the claim of Metrocity Vikas Samiti on the count
that at the time of alleged agreement in favour of Roopwas
Model Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, the land in question was
an agricultural land and in view of section 42B of the Act of
1955, the same cannot be transferred but has failed to
appreciate that Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain by filing the appeal
has challenged the public notice for regularization of the plots
in favour of the plot holders and at the relevant time the land
vested in the Government/ JDA and the JDA under the
scheme of regularization made by the government under
various circulars has proceeded for regularizing the plots.
Since at the time of the issuance of the public notice for
regularizing the land vested in the State Government, the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (18 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
provisions of section 42B of the Act of 1955 could not be
attracted. The learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA has failed to
appreciate the fact that Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain is not having
any vested right over the land in question on the basis of the
unregistered lease deeds which have also been cancelled by
the JDA and no prayer has been made in the appeal for
setting aside the cancellation of the lease deeds. Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Jain has only challenged the public notice for
regularization and that too on the basis of any legal valid
document.
16. This Court also finds some substance in the
submissions of the counsel appearing for the JDA that the
Appellate Tribunal, JDA has no competence to adjudicate the
validity of the agreements in between the parties. It is only
the Civil Court which can adjudicate the issue of validity of
the agreements. In view of this Court, the learned Appellate
Tribunal, JDA, has made observations as regards the validity
of the agreements beyond its jurisdiction.
17. By filing the appeals Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain has
challenged the notice dated 27.04.2015 and so also the
public notice issued by the JDA for holding the camp for
regularization of the possession of the plot holders. Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Jain has made a challenge to the notice dated
27.05.2015 whereby the alleged lease deeds said to have
been issued by the JDA in his favour has been cancelled as
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (19 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
same were not in consonance with the Rules of 1974 and the
same has been obtained by submitting the forged letters of
the khatedars. A consent letter does not create any right in
favour of any person. Any transfer of the property has to be
in accordance with the procedure and by legally valid
documents under the provisions of law like lease deed, lease,
allotment etc. The Appellate Tribunal, JDA has failed to
appreciate this material fact that the alleged lease deeds in
favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain are not in accordance with
law and therefore, same are void ab initio and does not
create any right in his favour.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
appellant has raised an issue that in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot
interfere in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, JDA
as the grounds raised in the writ petitions are not covered
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of
the Constitution of India provides for supervision of the High
Court over the Subordinate Courts. The writ petitions have
been filed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal,
JDA, and therefore, the High Court is competent to make
scrutiny of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, JDA
19. On perusal of the findings and the observations of
the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, the Court finds that various
observations are contrary to each other. The Appellate
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (20 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
Tribunal, JDA has passed the order in favour of Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Jain by holding his claim over certain plots which were
said to have been given to him in lieu of 15% developed land
for which the reservation letters were issued in favour of the
original khatedars i.e. Prabhu and Dhanna. Until and unless
the lease deeds are issued in favour of the khatedars in
furtherance of the reservation letters, there cannot be any
transfer of any rights of the khatedars. Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Jain is claiming that the JDA has issued the lease deeds for
15% developed land to be given to the khatedars for their
acquired land and for which reservation letters were also
issued. The JDA said to have issued the alleged unregistered
lease deeds on the basis of consent letter submitted by Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Jain. The signatures of the khatedars on the
said consent letters were found to be forged and therefore,
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain cannot claim any right over the land
to be given to the khatedars on the basis of such forged
consent letter. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal, JDA that
on the basis of the agreements and consent letters of the
Khatedars namely; Prabhu and Dhanna, the lease deeds of
nine plots were issued in favour of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain
and therefore Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain has full rights over the
said land. The learned Appellate Tribunal, JDA has failed to
appreciate the conferment of the rights of Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Jain over the land in question. Thus, in the light of the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (21 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand & Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879 the findings of the
Appellate Tribunal, JDA are perverse and contrary to law.
20. In case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. (supra),
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :-
“General Power of Attorney
18. A power of attorney is a creation of an agency
whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do
the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor,
which when executed will be binding on the grantor
as if done by him. It is revocable or terminable at
any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner
known to law. A General Power of Attorney does not
ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of an
immovable property even where some clauses are
introduced in it, holding it to be irrevocable or
authorizing the attorney holder to effect sale of the
immovable property on behalf of the grantor. It
would not ipso facto change the character of the
document transforming it into a conveyance deed.
19. A power of attorney is not a sale. A sale
involves transfer of all the rights in the property in
favour of the transferee but a power of attorney
simply authorises the grantee to do certain acts
with respect to the property including if the grantor
permits to do certain acts with respect to the
property including an authority to sell the property.
20. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant
Nahata, it was held that:
“13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially
governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By
reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent
is formally appointed to act for the principal in
one transaction or a series of transactions or to
manage the affairs of the principal generally
conferring necessary authority upon another
person. A deed of power of attorney is executed(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (22 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]by the principal in favour of the agent. The
agent derives a right to use his name and all
acts, deeds and things done by him and subject
to the limitations contained in the said deed, the
same shall be read as if done by the donor. A
power of attorney is, as is well known, a
document of convenience.
xxxx
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of
the provisions of the Contract Act as also the
Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of
attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is
executed by the donor so as to enable the
donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases
where power of attorney is coupled with
interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of
his power under such power of attorney only
acts in place of the donor subject of course to
the powers granted to him by reason thereof.
He cannot use the power of attorney for his own
benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act
of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter
between the donor and the donee.”
21. Further, the position of a power of attorney
with respect to conferment of title was explained by
this Court in the case of Suraj Lamp (supra), thus:
“20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of
transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in
an immovable property. The power of attorney is
creation of an agency whereby the grantor
authorises the grantee to do the acts specified
therein, on behalf of grantor, which when
executed will be binding on the grantor as if
done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of
the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is
revocable or terminable at any time unless it is
made irrevocable in a manner known to law.
Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the
effect of transferring title to the grantee.”
22. Having discussed the position of law, it is
essential to peruse the recitals of the General Power
of Attorney, which is on record and pressed into
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (23 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
service by plaintiff. The said GPA merely authorises
the grantee to manage the affairs of the suit
property, which includes the power to let out the
property on rent, and create a mortgage of the
same, etc. However, it is silent on the aspect of
conveyance. Be that as it may. The recitals of the
power of attorney would indicate the intent of the
grantor is to limit the powers of the grantee to only
manage the suit property, and not to create any
interest in his favour, which is in consonance with
the settled position of law as discussed above that a
power of attorney is an agency by which the agent
derives the authority or the right to enter into
transactions on behalf of the principal. Even if we
accept the validity of the Power of Attorney in
favour of the plaintiff, still it does not confer a valid
title on him with respect to the suit property.”
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para Nos.16 & 17 of the
said judgment further observed as under :-
“16. xxxx
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
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:6935] (24 of 24) [CW-3740/2022]
execution of a sale deed and does not create an
interest or charge on the suit property.”
In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the
land-in-question and certainly it is for the Jaipur Development
Authority to dispose of the land-in-question as per the
Government notifications and circulars.
22. In view of the discussion made above, the order of
the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur,
dated 03.02.2002 is not sustainable and deserves to be set
aside.
23. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed and
the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal,
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, is set aside.
24. The appeal Nos. 551/2015, 260/2015, 174/2020
and 180/2020, filed by the respondent-appellant before the
Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur are
hereby dismissed.
25. In view of the order passed in the main petitions,
the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also
stand disposed of.
26. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this
order in connected petitions.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 03:40:51 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/03/2026 at 08:56:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)