(T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Lalaram & Ors. ___________________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Jaipur Devt. Auth. & Anr. _________________________ Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28415/2011, decided on May 7, 2015
With SLP(C) No. 29515/2011, SLP(C) No. 36111/2011, SLP(C) No. 36175/2011, SLP(C) No. 36179/2011
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Apart from the question whether the policy relied upon by the petitioners is valid and enforceable in law, the question whether any land is available for allotment from out of a developed colony in or around Jaipur for the respondents to discharge their obligations under the Policy whereunder an area equivalent to 15% of the acquired land was to be allotted to them, also falls for determination. Learned counsel for the respondents-Authority submits, on instructions, that although sufficient extent of land is available in Lalchandpura, Boyatwala, Anantpura and Mansarampura yet since the said land is not fully developed, the Jaipur Development Authority may require another two years to develop the same. The respondents-Jaipur Development Authority is however willing to offer developed land in other areas in discharge of its obligations under the Policy relied upon by the petitioners. He submits given four weeks’ time, the respondent-Authority will be able to identify and place on record the extent of land representing 15% of the area acquired from each one of the petitioners which is available and can be allotted in their favour in a developed colony. This offer is however made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and only to assist the Court in coming to a correct conclusion.
2. We see no reason to decline the prayer for time to do needful especially when the offer which the respondent-Authority may make is likely to narrow down the area of the controversy and facilitate early disposal of the matter.
3. We Accordingly adjourn these matters by four weeks to be listed again in the last week of July 2015 for continuation of arguments. In the meantime, within a period of four weeks the respondent-Authority shall along with an affidavit place on record without prejudice the proposed areas for allotment in respect of each one of the petitioners, with an advance copy to counsel opposite who are free to respond to the same before the next date of hearing.
4. We make it clear that the areas so offered ought to be in developed colonies unlike areas which were earlier offered but are not fully developed.
———
