[2025:RJ-JP:9097-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1660/2025 1. Bharat Bhushan S/o. Shri Niranjan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Town Deeg, Tehsil And District Deeg. 2. Jitendra Saini S/o. Shri Niranjan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Town Deeg, Tehsil And District Deeg. 3. Smt. Nirmala W/o. Shri Niranjan Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Town Deeg, Tehsil And District Deeg. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Director, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Deeg. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Ms. Shikha Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 03/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following relief: “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to withdraw the notice dated 05.12.2023 and further they may kindly be directed to disclose the actual amount of tax leviable on the property of the petitioners and further they may also be directed to compute the amount of tax from the date of issuing of residential patta of the property i.e. from 18.08.2023. [2025:RJ-JP:9097-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1660/2025] (ii) Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The challenge to the notice dated 05.12.2023 does not survive as even according to the petitioner, pursuant to that notice, he had deposited cost of Rs. 1 lac which he admits to be the amount liable to be paid under notice dated 05.12.2023. On petitioner’s depositing the amount, the property has also been released from attachment. 4. Upon being repeatedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to place before this Court any material from the pleadings and documents as to what is the present cause of action. 5. It appears that on apprehension that his property may again be attached, this petition has been filed. 6. In our view, presently, the petitioner does not have a cause of action. In case, any adverse order is passed or notice is issued to the petitioner or any attachment proceedings are drawn, it will be open for the petitioner to take recourse of such remedy as may be available to him under the law. 7. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ INDER/PAYAL/17