[2025:RJ-JP:24238] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7756/2025 Shri Badridas Bidawat Ji Ka Middle School Society, Sikar Through Its Secretary Shri Balwant Singh Chirana, S/o Shri Bajrang Singh Chirana, Aged About 45 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies And Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Municipal Council, Sikar Through Its Commissioner, Nagar Prishad Sikar, Office Nagar Parishad Sikar, Salasar Road, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana-Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sankalp Sogani Ms. Muskan Verma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the public notice dated 20.02.2025 issued by the Municipal Council, Sikar (for short, ‘the Council’), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By issuing a public notice dated 20.02.2025, the objections have been invited by the Council with regard to the land in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the perpetual lease of land in question was issued in favour of the petitioner by none other than the Council itself and the same is duly registered. Counsel submits that unless and until the said perpetual lease of [2025:RJ-JP:24238] (2 of 3) [CW-7756/2025] land is cancelled by the competent authority, the Council cannot claim its right/ownership over the same, hence the notice in question could not be issued by the Council, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following orders:- Gulam Jilanee Vs. Director of Local Self Government Department and Ors, reported in 2018(2) DNJ 385. Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P and Ors. reported in 2015 Supreme Court(SC) 1290. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy as raised by the counsel for petitioner as till date, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner and simply a public notice has been issued by the Council inviting objection. Perusal of the record indicates that the written objections/reply has already been submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid public notice, now it is expected from the Council to decide the objections/reply submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law. [2025:RJ-JP:24238] (3 of 3) [CW-7756/2025] 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/62