[2026:RJ-JP:32835] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8114/2026 CNR: RJHC020424302026 | URN: CW / 17815U / 2026 1. Shri Sayed Qutubuddin Chishti S/o Sayed Majiduddin Chishti, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. 35/459, Noor Mahal, Hindu Mochi Mohalla, Inside Ghaseti Chowk, Nala Bazar, Ajmer. 2. Smt. Sayeda Sabra Bibi W/o Shri Sayed Qutubuddin Chishti, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House No. 35/459, Noor Mahal, Hindu Mochi Mohalla, Inside Ghaseti Chowk, Nala Bazar, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer Rajasthan Through Its Commissioner. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Pooja Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Choudhary with Ms. Ritu Mishra for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/08/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notice dated 07.11.2024 issued by the competent authority and officer-in-charge of Anti-illegal Construction Branch Nagar Nigam, Ajmer under Section 194(7)(f) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, whereby property of the petitioners was seized for a period of 90 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that period of 90 days, as per notice dated 07.11.2024 has expired long back [2026:RJ-JP:32835] (2 of 3) [CW-8114/2026] in February, 2025. Thereafter, such seizure period has neither been extended by the respondent-Nagar Nigam, nor have they removed seizure from the property of the petitioners. Thus, continuation of seizure beyond 90 days, is without authority of law and jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18597/2024 (Shri Harish Arora & Anr. Vs. Authorized Officer & Anr.). 4. Vide order dated 10.08.2026, this Court granted time to learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions as to whether any action or proceedings have been undertaken by the respondents after expiry of 90 days from the date of sealing premises of the petitioners, or not. 5. Today, on instruction, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after expiry of 90 days, as mentioned in notice dated 07.11.2024, the respondent-Nagar Nigam has not carried out any fresh proceedings and has not passed any order for extending the period of seizure. However, learned counsel submits that it is a matter of fact that the petitioners have raised illegal constructions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is a matter of record that impugned notice dated 07.11.2024 mandates seizure of petitioners' property only for a period of 90 days and admittedly, such notice has not been followed by any further proceedings for extending period of seizure, therefore, in view of the limited period of seizure [2026:RJ-JP:32835] (3 of 3) [CW-8114/2026] mentioned in the notice dated 07.11.2024 and on account of efflux of time, the notice has become infructuous. As the respondents have not undertaken any further exercise for extension of seizure period, they are under an obligation to forthwith remove the seizure/seal from the petitioners' property. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to forthwith remove seal/seizure from the petitioners' property. However, after fresh inspection, if it is found by the respondents that illegal construction/unauthorized use is still existing on petitioners' property, they shall be at liberty to take fresh suitable action in accordance with law. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 24/DIVYA