No lease deed in their favour: Rajasthan High Court dismisses appeals against JDA’s road-widening order

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of intra-court appeals against interim orders passed by a Single Judge in writ petitions challenging the alignment of a proposed 100-feet road in Manyawas, Sanganer, holding that the appellants possessed no lease deed over the land and that the road’s construction served the larger public interest.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja held that the Special Appeals assailed only the interim orders while the underlying writ petitions remained pending before the Single Judge, and declined to interfere with directions permitting the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to construct the road and remove encroachments from it.

The bench recorded:

“These appeals filed by the appellants deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the appellants have challenged only the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, while the writ petitions are still pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge; secondly, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the larger public interest, has rightly directed the JDA to remove the encroachments from the proposed road and lastly, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of the fact that the appellants do not possess any lease deed issued by the JDA nor by any statutory authority in favour of the appellants, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge.”

The appeals arose out of interim orders dated Jul 1, 2026 and Jul 3, 2026, passed by the Single Judge in five connected writ petitions filed by residents of Manyawas village. While passing the interim order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10389/2026, the Single Judge, in paragraphs 15 to 20 of that order, granted JDA liberty to construct an actual 80-feet road — 40 feet on either side of the centre line sanctioned in a JDA meeting dated Jul 15, 2025 — and permitted removal of any obstruction coming in the way of the proposed road, subject to compliance being reported within 15 days. The land measuring 3 metres on either side, earmarked for a footpath, was directed to remain unused by either the petitioners or the JDA till disposal of the writ petitions, and the interim arrangement was made expressly subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the dispute had a chequered history — the matter had earlier travelled to a Division Bench, which remanded it to the JDA Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal in turn remanded it to the JDA for fresh consideration. It was contended that the JDA, while reconsidering the matter in its meeting dated Jul 15, 2025, illegally altered the alignment of the road, and that the appellants’ subsequent appeals before the Tribunal against this decision were dismissed, leading them to approach the Single Judge by way of writ petitions.

Appellants’ counsel contended that the Single Judge failed to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective and that, since the alignment of the road was itself the subject matter of challenge in the pending writ petitions, the interim order directing construction as per the contested 2025 meeting virtually granted the final relief sought, leaving nothing further for adjudication.

Mr. Amit Kuri, appearing for the JDA, submitted that the appeals were confined to the interim order and that the Single Judge had, after weighing the larger public interest, rightly directed removal of encroachments. He informed the Court that the JDA had already removed 34 encroachments and was in the process of removing the remaining 24, and that the land for the disputed road had been duly acquired and the road network plan prepared in compliance with this Court’s earlier directions in various writ petitions.

Concurring with the JDA’s submissions, the bench found no lease deed had been issued to the appellants by the JDA or any statutory authority, and that the writ petitions themselves remained pending before the Single Judge. The special appeals — arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10389/2026, 10347/2026, 11378/2026, 11370/2026 and 10348/2026 — were accordingly dismissed, with the Court directing that a copy of the order be placed in each connected file.

Title: Jyana Devi & Ors. v. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. (with connected Special Appeals)

Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 745/2026 (connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 740/2026, 742/2026, 743/2026 and 744/2026)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:26529-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Maharishi with Mr. Devanshu Saini and Ms. Vaishnavi Pareek; Mr. Saransh Saini; Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak and Mr. Utkarsh Meena; Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma (through video conference)

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Ayush Sharma and Mr. Dharma Ram for Jaipur Development Authority; Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Lakhan Sharma and Mr. Akshay Sharma