[2025:RJ-JP:51415] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20228/2025 1. Dinesh Sharma S/o Sh. Laxhmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Plot No. 26-A, Manav Aashram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur At Present 134, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. 2. Vikash Kumar S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 55, Meheriya, Ward No. 14, Serara, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer. 3. Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Zone Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj with Ms. Laxmi Nivas Koli For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 19/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the Seizure Memo dated 31.07.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Malviya Nagar Zone, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. By way of the impugned seizure memo, the petitioners' residential plot No. 46-A, Manav Aashram Colony (SR2), has been seized until further orders by invoking the provision of Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"). [2025:RJ-JP:51415] (2 of 2) [CW-20228/2025] 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that following the issuance of the said seizure memo on 31.07.2024, the petitioners have repeatedly approached the respondent authorities, however, no action has been taken till date. He further submits that the authorities have remained inactive and are sitting over the matter indefinitely. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are the rightful owners of the residential plot and asserts that the property could not have been seized in the manner adopted by the respondents. He further argued that the property cannot be kept under seizure for an indefinite period. Thus, counsel for the petitioners prays that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a representation before the respondents, with a direction to them to decide the same in a time bound manner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Considering the limited relief sought by the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands disposed with the directions to the respondent No.3 to decide the petitioners’ representation (if so filed within a period of ten days from today) within 30 days from the receipt of such representation. The respondent-authority shall decide the same after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. 4. However, it is made clear that the said directions should not be construed as directions to decide the representation in a particular manner and the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J Sunita/seema/7