[2025:RJ-JP:25483] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9652/2025 Gulshan S/o Shri Dinesh Chand, Aged About 37 Years, Resident of N-14, Sagar Vihar Colony, Opposite HDFC Bank, Vaishali Nagar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ajmer Development Authority (ADA), Through Its Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority Bhawan, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, District Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001. 2. The District Collector And District Magistrate, Collectorate Office Compound, District Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyark Vatsa For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers: “a) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to carry out the repair/reconstruction of the boundary wall situated at Plot No.10 (part of Khasra No.460), measuring 233.10 sq. yards, situated at Vridha Awas Grah Nirman Yojna, Near Chandraprabhu Nagar, Village Makadwali, District Ajmer, in accordance with law; b) Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner is not unlawfully restrained or obstructed in exercising his legal and physical possession over the aforesaid property, and to provide adequate [2025:RJ-JP:25483] (2 of 3) [CW-9652/2025] protection as may be necessary to safeguard his lawful rights; c) Declare that the action of the Respondents in arbitrarily restraining the Petition from undertaking construction activity on his own land, without any legal authority, order, or proceeding, is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; d) Direct the respondent not to cause any hindrance or obstruction in the lawful construction/repair of the boundary wall by the petitioner to his own plot; e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to permit him to carry out repairs/reconstruction of boundary wall on the subject land. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the condition of the boundary wall is deprecated, hence, under such circumstances, the petitioner was repairing the same, but on account of false and fabricated complaints made by the Officials of the Ajmer Development Authority (for short ‘ADA’), the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to complete the aforesaid work. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a grievance has been raised in this regard before the Commissioner ADA in writing by way of filing the representation but inspite of passing considerable time till date, the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Considering the fact that the grievance raised by the petitioner by way of filing the representation before the [2025:RJ-JP:25483] (3 of 3) [CW-9652/2025] Commissioner, ADA is pending, it is expected from the Commissioner, ADA to decide the said representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, without making any delay in disposal of the same. 6. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with directions to the Commissioner, ADA to decide the representation of the petitioner pending, if any, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any directions/orders to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way, they would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J AMIT/18