Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case Against JDA Officer Accused Of Illegal Demolition, Cites Lack Of Sanction

The Rajasthan High Court set aside proceedings against the Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority (“EO, JDA”) in a case of alleged unlawful entry and demolition of entry gate, in absence of prior sanction under Section 197, CrPC and restriction under Section 78 of the JDA Act.The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition challenging the orders of the trial court that took cognizance against the petitioner pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent.It was alleged by the respondent that around 50-60 people unlawfully entered his premises, and demolished the boundary wall and gate. It was further alleged that the acts were committed at the instance and under the directions of the Commissioner.It was the case of the petitioner that the allegation arose out of the proceedings undertaken for removal of encroachment from public land. At the time of the instance, he was posted at EO, JDA, and was discharging his official duties.After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 197, CrPC, and held that where the alleged act had a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, prior sanction was required. Hence, the test of was not whether the act was strictly lawful, but whether it was performed in the course of official duty or had reasonable connection with such duty.Section 197, CrPC provides for prior sanction for prosecution against public servant in relation to any offence committed while discharge of his/her official duty.“Even if the act is alleged to be in excess of authority or involved procedural irregularities, the protection would still apply so long as the act is not wholly unrelated to official functions.”Furthermore, the Court made a reference to case of JDA and Anr. v the Appellate Tribunal and Ors. in relation to the same matter, and highlighted that it was observed by the Court that the proposal regarding removal of encroachment was approved by the Director Law and Commissioner, JDA. Hence, EO was acting pursuant to such direction.“It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner initiated and carried out the said action pursuant to statutory powers vested in him and under the directions of the Commissioner, which is also evident from the First Information Report itself…The allegations concerning removal of encroachment and the consequential exercise of authority arise directly out of the statutory duties assigned to the petitioner. Even assuming procedural irregularities or excesses, the act cannot be said to be wholly dehors the discharge of official duty.”Section 78, JDA provides for statutory protection to JDA officers for acts done in good faith under the Act. In absence of any material indicating mala fide exercise of power, continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law.In this background, it was held that the proceedings were initiated without prior sanction under Section 197, CrPC, and the acts complained of were also protected under Section 78, JDA Act.Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the trial court was held to be bad in law, and was set aside. Title: Rajeev Dutta v the State of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 94Click Here To Read/Download Order

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case Against JDA Officer Accused Of Illegal Demolition, Cites Lack Of Sanction

Nupur Agrawal

Tags