Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37896 (RAJ)

SMT. VEENETA SHARMA W/O LATE SHRI RAJESH SHARMA v. AJMER NAGAR NIGAM

CW/13882/2025 · 2025-10-08

Sanjeet Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:40810] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13882/2025 Smt. Veeneta Sharma W/o Late Shri Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Vivek Vihar Colony, Ward No. 40, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer Rajasthan Through Its Commissioner. 2. Authorized Officer And Incharge Officer (Anti Illegal Construction Branch), Ajmer Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Bismaad Kaur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 08/10/2025 The present writ petition challenges the seizure notice dated 22.12.2023 issued by the Nagar Nigam, Ajmer, whereby the subject property of the petitioner was sealed for a period of ninety days. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the expiry of the seizure period, the seal has not been removed and also no reasons have been communicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18597/2024 (Shri Harish Arora & Anr. v. Authorized Officer and In-Charge Officer & Anr.), and submits that the same principles would apply mutatis mutandis to [2025:RJ-JP:40810] (2 of 2) [CW-13882/2025] the present case. Once the seizure period expires, the seal ought to be removed unless the respondents provide valid reasons for retaining it beyond the stipulated period. Considering the overall facts & circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel at bar and the judgment passed in the case of Shri Harish Arora (supra), this Court deems it appropriate and therefore, direct the respondents to remove the seal forthwith from the sealed property or to apprise the petitioner the reason(s) for non-removal of the seal despite lapse of the period of seizure within a period of three days from the date the petitioner approach them. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J SAHIL SONI /3