[2025:RJ-JP:30846] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15824/2018 Mateen Ahmed Son Of Shri Umar Khan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of House Of Umar Thekedar, Ward No. 4, Near Roopangarh Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The District Collector, Ajmer. 4. The Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Kishangarh, District Ajmer. 5. Station House Officer, Police Station, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravi Kant Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.P.S. Rajawat, Asst.GC. With Mr.Manoj Kumar & Ms.Swati Thory for Mr.G.S. Gill, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be accept and allow the writ petition and to issue writ or any nature, order or direction: (i) non-petitioner may kindly be directed to search or reconstitute the file relating to the [2025:RJ-JP:30846] (2 of 4) [CW-15824/2018] petitioner’s matter and take necessary steps for issuing orders documents in favour of the petitioners; (ii) to directing the non-petitioners to execute the lease deed, sale deed in favour of the petitioner in relation to the land for which the petitioner have already deposited entire sale consideration and complied all formalities on his part; (iii) to directing the non-petitioners to grant permission for construction on the land in question; (iv) to directing the S.H.O. Kishangarh to investigate the matter and submit fact finding report before the Hon’ble Court immediately; (v) to directing any authority or local self department to make enquire into the matter fairly, properly and speedily and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court; (vi) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, several prayers have been made by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was purchased by the father of the petitioner from the respondents. Counsel submits that a strip of land is lying nearby the purchased property by the father of the petitioner, an application/ representation was submitted by the petitioner in the office of the respondents for allotting the same to the petitioner, [2025:RJ-JP:30846] (3 of 4) [CW-15824/2018] the requisite charges in this regard have been deposited, now, the respondents have lost the file of the relevant papers, hence, they are not deciding the application/representation submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to provide all the relevant documents in the office of the respondents for doing the needful exercise, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to decide the application/representation of the petitioner within a fixed time, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that in case, a liberty is granted to the petitioner for filing application/representation, he has no objection, if the Department will decide the same in accordance with law. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file one more application/representation along-with all the relevant documents in support of his contentions. In case, such application/representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:30846] (4 of 4) [CW-15824/2018] 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents to decide the application/representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /92