[2025:RJ-JP:20251] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6900/2025 Ashok Meghraj Pahilwani, S/o Shri Meghraj Pahilwani, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 1801 Oberoi Woods Tower B. Opp. Western Express Highway Next To International Business Park Goregaon (East), Mumbai. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan). 2. Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan). 3. M/s Adarsh Thoughtworks Private Limited, A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At Flat No. 09, 3Rd Floor, Sujan Avenue, Near Khadayata Colony, Ellisbridge, Ahemdabad (Gujarat) Through Its Directors. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Nath Mr. Akash Shrivastava Ms. Shruti Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj Mr. Chinmay Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by this Court while deciding a batch of writ petitions with the lead [2025:RJ-JP:20251] (2 of 4) [CW-6900/2025] case of Govind Narain Sharma Versus Union of India & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5241/2025. Learned counsel submits that the instant writ petition be disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Govind Narain Sharma (supra). 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the case of Govind Narain Sharma (supra), the co-petitioners were either having the registered sale-deed or agreement to sell executed in their favour, but in the instant matter the petitioner is not in possession of such documents, hence, he is not entitle to get the similar relief as sought for. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has got registration and, thereafter, the registration to purchase the plot and as per contention of counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has made 95% of the payment through banking transaction. The documents, in this regard, are available on the record. 5. Looking to the fact that the identical writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 while deciding batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Govind Narain Sharma (supra) with the following observations and directions:- “4. Contents of the writ petition indicates that some orders were passed by the adjudicating authority on 31.03.2020 confirming the attachment of the property in question as claimed by the petitioners. The [2025:RJ-JP:20251] (3 of 4) [CW-6900/2025] aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioners by way of filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. All those appeals were disposed of by common order dated 09.10.2024, wherein, a liberty was granted to them to get their rights crystallized in reference to the property for which agreement of sell was executed or in the case where registered sale deeds have been executed. While granting liberty aforesaid, it was observed by the Tribunal that the petitioners would not create any third party rights in favour of any one and interim protection was also granted to them with regard to their possession for a period of six months. 5. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have submitted their respective representations for crystallization of their rights. It appears that the representations submitted by the petitioners have not been decided by the authority concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in- spite of passing of considerable time. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, both the instant writ petitions stand disposed by issuing directions to the authority concerned to decide the representations of the petitioners (pending, if any) expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. For a period of further six weeks, the interim protection awarded to the petitioners with respect to their possession on the property in question, as per the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, shall continue. 8. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to the respondent/Appellate Court to decide the representation [2025:RJ-JP:20251] (4 of 4) [CW-6900/2025] of the petitioner in a particular way. The same would be decided by them strictly in accordance with law.” 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition also stand disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Govind Narain Sharma (supra). 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/43