[2025:RJ-JP:22828] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7010/2025 Suresh Kumar Chandela, Son Of Dataram Chandela, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 9102, Block No. 26, Rangoli Garden, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, Wife Of Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No. H-67, Aankad Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Civil Lines Zone, Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. 3. Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Akshay Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur by which the patta dated 10.01.2024 issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid patta issued in favour of the petitioner was assailed by the respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Director Local Bodies, wherein neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided and straightaway, the order impugned has been [2025:RJ-JP:22828] (2 of 3) [CW-7010/2025] passed which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that in fact, the respondent was having patta of the subject land which was also cancelled vide order dated 20.11.2023 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondents and patta of the same subject land was allotted to the petitioner on 10.01.2024. Counsel submits that since the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, hence, taking note of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the order impugned has been passed by the Director, Local Bodies, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going to examine the merits of the matter as to whether the patta issued in favour of the respondent was rightly cancelled or not or whether the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled or not. 6. The matter is required to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence and documents produced by both the sides, but herein the instant case, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner straightaway, the order impugned has been passed which has resulted the violation of the principles of natural justice. [2025:RJ-JP:22828] (3 of 3) [CW-7010/2025] 7. It is the settled law that whenever any adverse order is passed against a person, it is the bare minimum requirement of law that at least an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to such person, but in the instant case, no such opportunity has been provided. 8. On this count, the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set- aside. The petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Direction, Local Bodies for its fresh adjudication. 9. Needless to observe, the Director would pass a fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents and would take into consideration the documents furnished by both parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /410