[2025:RJ-JP:47476] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15519/2023 Rahul Kumar S/o Shri Balkishan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of H-88, H-03 Tanaji Nagar, Street No. 10, Bhajanganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj) 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (Rajasthan) 3. Secretary And Authorised Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14861/2023 Molik S/o Shri Rohit Kumar, R/o H-88, H-03 Tanaji Nagar, Street No. 1, Bhajanganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Through His Natrual Guardian Mother Smt. Renu Berwa W/o Rohit Kumar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (Raj.) 3. Secretary And Authorised Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Shivendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh Rajawat, Asst. G.C. for Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 24/11/2025 At the outset, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the construction being made by them at the subject site bearing property No. AMC 712/31 Chaitanya Marg Nagar, [2025:RJ-JP:47476] (2 of 3) [CW-15519/2023] Ajmer is for residential purposes and no commercial activity was being carried out at the subject site. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the only basis on which the respondents have arrived at a finding that the construction is of commercial nature is installation of a shutter at the front side which might have given an impression of construction being of a commercial nature, whereas, the only reason for installing the shutter is limited width of the road and thus, merely installing shutter cannot lead to a presumption of a commercial activity being carried out by them. Learned counsel for petitioners further undertakes not to carry out any commercial activity at the subject site regarding which a written submission was made by them before the respondent Authority. However, despite that, the subject site is under seizure for last more than three years and even appeal preferred by them was rejected vide order dated 03.02.2023. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the construction raised by the petitioners is of commercial nature and thus, the seizure order and also the order dated 03.02.2023 of the appellate Authority has been rightly passed. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. A bare perusal of the seizure order dated 07.10.2022 as well as the order dated 03.02.2023 reveals that the sole ground on which the property stands seized is the fact that petitioners have raised construction of commercial nature on the subject site. When petitioners in categorical terms have undertaken that they will not raise any kind of commercial activity at the subject site and will use the premises solely for residential purposes, it [2025:RJ-JP:47476] (3 of 3) [CW-15519/2023] would duly meet the object for which the said coercive step was taken and keeping the subject site under seizure anymore would be of no necessity. Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to permit petitioners to raise the construction strictly in accordance with the map/site plan as approved by the Authority concerned and in the event of any non-compliance or violation of the terms of that approved map, the respondents would be at liberty to take all possible steps. Consequently, the seizure order dated 07.10.2022 and the appellate Authority order dated 03.02.2023 are quashed and set aside. Petitioners would be at liberty to raise constructions at the subject site in accordance with the approved site plan solely for residential purposes. Further, as a note of caution, petitioners would be required to submit the particulars and details of the construction work being carried out with the respondent Authorities immediately after the completion of same. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed. All other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /63 & 64