[2025:RJ-JP:38178] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14230/2025 Rambabu Khandelwal S/o Shri Shyam Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 403, Khasor Wali Gali, Sector-3, Mukharji Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director and Special Secretary, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 4. The Officer In Charge, Encroachment Wing, Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Punit Singhvi with Mr.Ishan Verma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the complainant, Mr.Laxman Prasad Sharma filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Municipal Corporation, Bharatpur (for short, “the Coporation”) alleging unauthorized construction on the subject land by the petitioner. Subsequently, the subject land was seized by the Corporation under Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalilites Act, 2009 (for short, “the Act of 2009”) vide seizure order dated 16.05.2022. Counsel further submits that the seizure order dated 16.05.2022 was challenged by the petitioner before [2025:RJ-JP:38178] (2 of 3) [CW-14230/2025] the Director, Local Bodies and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for de-sealing of the subject land pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2022. 2. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022 and the order of the Director, Local Bodies dated 13.07.2023, the petitioner submitted the requisite application and deposited the compounding charges and thereafter, applied for grant of permission to regularize the construction. 3. Counsel submits that in the meantime, the father of the complainant entered into a compromise with the petitioner and received a lum psum amount of Rs.1,05,000/- from the petitioner on 27.07.2022 and the matter was dropped. Thereafter, again the complainant has filed a similar complaint against the petitioner and now, the impugned notices dated 09.04.2025 and 13.08.2025 have been issued to the petitioner by the Corporation with regard to the same subject matter. 4. Counsel submits that once the matter has been finalized, the same cannot be allowed to be re-opened with regard to the same allegations. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is supposed to approach the Office of the Corporation with regard to the disposal of the aforesaid application on the basis of the arguments raised before this Court and the documents in support of his contentions by way of filing an appropriate comprehensive representation. [2025:RJ-JP:38178] (3 of 3) [CW-14230/2025] 7. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same strictly in accordance with law expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of five weeks. 9. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievances. 10. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /6