[2025:RJ-JP:30479] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11912/2025 Ramjug Agarwal Son Of Late Sh. Ramnath Agarwal, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of 110, Mitra Niwas Colony, Madanganj Kis- hanganj, District-Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur. 2. Municipal Council, Kishangarh, District Ajmer Through Its Commissioner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.S. Raghav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Municipal Council, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short, "the Council") by which the patta of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a freehold patta/ lease was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Council vide order dated 14.06.2023 and the same was registered on 22.06.2023. Counsel submits that without issuing any notice for cancellation of the patta/lease, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner wherein he was alleged to have been encroacher on the subject land and in the garb of the said show-cause notice, the patta/lease issued to the petitioner itself has been cancelled by the Council vide impugned order dated 02.07.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:30479] (2 of 3) [CW-11912/2025] 3. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not an encoracher over the subject land, but he was having a registered patta of the same in his favour, hence, under these circumstances, there was no reason or occastion available with the Council to cancel the patta of the petitioner by exercising its powers contained under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, "the Act of 2009"), hence, intereference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. The provisions contained under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 pertains to revocation of allotment/cancellation of lease. It appears that by exercising the aforesaid power, the Council has cancelled the patta of the petitioner. 6. Whether the Council was having any authority to cancel the patta of the petitioner or not; Whether before passing the order impugned adequate opportunity of filing a reply was provided to the petitioner or not; all things are required to be examined by the Appellate Authorities as prescribed under Section 73 B (4) of the Act of 2009. 7. The statutes itself provides alternative remedy to the petitioner to file appeal against the order impugned, but instead of doing so, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever alternative statutory remedy is available to a person, he is not supposed to by-pass the jurisdiction of said Authority. [2025:RJ-JP:30479] (3 of 3) [CW-11912/2025] 9. On this count alone, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Rule 73-B (4) of the Act of 2009 before the Appellate Authority. In case, such appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, ignoring the period of limitation. 10. In case, the petitioner submits stay application with the memo of appeal, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decided the stay application on its merits. 11. For a period of seven days, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 12. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /3