[2025:RJ-JP:51413] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20170/2025 1. Ramji Lal Meena S/o Late Sh. Laxman Ram Meena, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Plot No. 27, Manav Aashram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Rajesh Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Swami, Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 282-C, 10-B Scheme, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur. ----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, situated at No. 27, Manav Aashram Colony, Jaipur, has been seized until further orders by invoking the provisions of Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"). 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 [2025:RJ-JP:51413] (2 of 2) [CW-20170/2025] approached the respondent-authorities, however, no action has been taken till date. Learned counsel 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. It is further argued that the property cannot be kept under seizure for an indefinite period. Finally, learned counsel submits that though a representation has already been filed, the petitioners are willing to file a fresh representation, if so directed by this Court seeking its time-bound disposal in accordance with the law. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Considering the limited grievance raised by the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands disposed of 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. 5. 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 the law. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J Sunita/seema/1