[2025:RJ-JP:44460] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19993/2023 Mumtaz Ahmad Son Of Late Shri Hafeej Munna, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of J-129, Behind Rahim Manzil, M I Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Bodies, Jaipur. 2. Department Of Local Bodies, Through Director, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur. 3. Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through The Commissioner, Behind Hawa Mahal, Near Badi Choupar, Jaipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner (Land Bank), Nagar Nigam Heritage, Behind Hawa Mahal, Near Badi Choupar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Chauhan for respondents No.3 & 4 Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. S.P. Rajawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 06/11/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition is filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-15) passed by the Director, Department of Local Bodies, Jaipur, whereby the direction has been given to undertake the fresh auction proceedings with regard to the plot in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the year 1983, an auction proceeding for the plot in question was undertaken, wherein bid submitted by the petitioner was found highest and twenty five per cent of the bid amount was deposited by him. However, since no notice for the further amount has been issued, rest of the amount could not be deposited by the petitioner. It is also contended that without even passing any [2025:RJ-JP:44460] (2 of 3) [CW-19993/2023] order for canceling earlier bid proceedings, the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage has proceeded with a fresh auction and has accepted the highest bid offered by some other bidder. 3. In relation to the said dispute, a Civil Suit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein judgment and decree dated 06.08.1994 was passed, directing the respondent – Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage to pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also contended that the matter has been considered by the Empowered Committee in its meeting dated 05.07.2023 and a conscious decision has been taken to refer the matter to the State Government for considering the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the observations made by the Empowered Committee have not been taken into account and the order impugned dated 20.10.2023 has been passed by the State Government directing to take possession of the plot and initiate fresh auction proceedings, however, no reasons even for the namesake has been mentioned for taking the said decision. 5. In response to the said contentions of the petitioner, counsel for the respondent – Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG as well as Ms. Vandana Chauhan, have argued that as a matter of fact, in terms of the conditions of the auction more particularly Condition Nos.4 & 5, the petitioner has not deposited due amount within stipulated time and therefore, allotment of the plot in question could not be made in favour of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in view of the dispute being pending since long time, the State Government [2025:RJ-JP:44460] (3 of 3) [CW-19993/2023] has rightly passed the order dated 20.10.2023 and directed for undertaking fresh auction of the plot in question. 7. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that a specific direction is contained in the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 that an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to the petitioner and an appropriate order was required to be passed in relation to the auction held on 21.02.1983. 8. This court is of the opinion that the order impugned dated 20.10.2023 is completely non-speaking and unreasoned order and no final decision has been taken regarding auction held on 21.02.1983 as directed by the learned Civil Court. 9. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of present writ petition with a direction to the respondent – State Government to decide the matter afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate reasoned order while complying the direction contained in the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999. 10. Consequently, order impugned dated 20.10.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent – State Government is directed to take a final decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J PAYAL DHAWAN /20