[2025:RJ-JP:2289] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18181/2024 1. Anil Agarwal S/o Late Dau Dayal Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ward No.24, Near Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur (Raj.) Having Its Business At Lagan Saree Showroom, Shop No.9, Laxman Mandir Bhartpur (Raj.) 2. Shukhlal S/o Late Shri Inderlal, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Z-P/1 Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.) Having Its Business At Fancy Saree, Shop No.2, Laxman Mandir Bhartpur (Raj.) 3. Rahul Agarwal S/o Late Shri Shyam Agarwal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 176, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj Having Its Business At Shyam Garments, Shop No.10, Laxman Mandir Bhartpur (Raj.) 4. Rajendra Kumar Goyal S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Das Goyal, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Ward No.24, Bharatpur (Raj.) Having Its Business At R.b. Jewelers, Shop No.16, Laxman Mandir Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur Through Commissioner Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Officer Incharge Encroachment Wing, Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur (Raj.) ---Respondents 3. Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, Bharatpur (Raj.) –-Proforma Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. P.C. Jain with Ms. Kriti Jain & Mr. Ashok Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 16/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 10.10.2024 collectively attached as annexure 1. [2025:RJ-JP:2289] (2 of 3) [CW-18181/2024] 2. The facts as pleaded are that the petitioners are tenant of Devasthan Department. The Nagar Nigam Bharatpur issued impugned notices to the petitioners alleging that construction of shop is unauthorized and on failure to produce the documents with regard to ownership of the land within seven days, the proceedings under Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act’) shall be initiated. The petitioners filed response dated 10.10.2024. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the notices. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the shops were constructed by the Devasthan Department and no proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners under Section 194 of the Act. It is argued that earlier when similar notices were issued, the Devasthan Department had sent a communication to the concerned Official that the shops belonged to it and have been rent out. The argument is that the proceedings have been initiated under the wrong provisions. 4. By issuing show cause notices petitioners were given an opportunity to produce the documents with regard to ownership of the shops and the notices were responded to. Nothing is placed on record to show that after filing of the reply the respondents are proceeding in pursuance to the show cause notices. Though, in the grounds of writ, which is not a pleading of fact, it is mentioned that the petitioners were orally informed that directly demolition order will be passed, the pleading is bald statement. There is no detail of the date and the concerned Official who had given the information. [2025:RJ-JP:2289] (3 of 3) [CW-18181/2024] 5. The issuance of show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioners itself indicate that the respondents are following due process of law and if need so arises petitioners shall be given opportunity of hearing. After considering the response filed by the petitioners as on date there is no decision taken by the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed being premature. 6. Needless to say, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, in case cause of action so arises. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/3