Disposed¶24

Smt. Rinku Khandelwal W/O Sh. Rajesh Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2025CW/20197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20197/2025; Anuroop Singhi J.; decided 19/12/2025; neutral citation [2025:RJ-JP:51414]; Section 194 Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009; Seizure Memo 31.07.2024; Deputy Commissioner Malviya Nagar Zone Municipal Corporation Jaipur; residential plot No. 7 My Pathshala Himmat Nagar Gopalpura; indefinite seizure of property; direction to decide representation within 30 days; reasoned and speaking order; writ petition disposed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the respondents within ten days; respondent No.3 to decide it within 30 days of receipt, after affording an opportunity of being heard, by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. ¶24

Smt. Rinku Khandelwal W/O Sh. Rajesh Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to file a representation before the respondents against the seizure of their plot, with a time-bound direction for its decision. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed with directions to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioners' representation, if filed within ten days, within 30 days from receipt of such representation.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The respondent-authority shall decide the representation after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶24

Key takeaways

The directions are not to be construed as directions to decide the representation in a particular manner; the representation shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶25
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single bench of Anuroop Singhi, J. (decision dated 19/12/2025), disposed of a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20197/2025) challenging a Seizure Memo dated 31.07.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Malviya Nagar Zone, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, under Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, whereby the petitioners' residential plot No. 7, My Pathshala, Himmat Nagar, Gopalpura stood seized until further orders. Noting that the petitioners had repeatedly approached the authorities without any action being taken, and considering the limited relief sought, the Court directed respondent No.3 to decide the petitioners' representation, if filed within ten days, within 30 days of its receipt, after affording an opportunity of being heard and by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Court clarified that the directions were not to be construed as mandating a decision in any particular manner, the representation to be decided strictly in accordance with law. Pending applications were disposed of. The legality of the seizure itself was not adjudicated.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:51414]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20197/2025

¶4

Smt. Rinku Khandelwal W/o Sh. Rajesh Khandelwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 9/12, Khandelwar Tower, Sector No. 1 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

Rahul Khandelwal S/o Sh. Deen Dayal Khandelwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 9/12, Khandelwal Tower, Sector No. 1 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

Rakesh S/o Sh. Balbeer, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Birdsagar, Village Devta, Tehsil Kotputali, District Kotputali, Behror, Rajasthan.

¶7

Rahul Bainsla S/o Sh. Harikishan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Haria Mohalla, Near Old Government School, Baroli, Palwal, Hariyana.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶12

Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Zone Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj with Ms. Laxmi Nivas Koli For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order

¶16

19/12/2025

¶17

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 No. 7, My Pathshala, Himmat Nagar,

[2025:RJ-JP:51414]

[CW-20197/2025]

(2 of 3)

Gopalpura, 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").

¶22

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 approached the respondent authorities, however, no action has been taken till date. He further 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. Thus, counsel for the petitioners prays that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a representation before the respondents, with a direction to them to decide the same in a time bound manner.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶24

Considering the limited relief sought by the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands disposed 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.

¶25