Disposed

Manish Hair Art v. Ajmer Development Authority

Rajasthan HC23 May 2025CW/7731/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of four connected writ petitions challenging notices under Section 67 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013. The Court directed the authorities to decide pending replies within two months and stayed evictions for three and a half months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to decide pending replies within two months and stay on action against petitioners for three and a half months.

Manish Hair Art Vs Ajmer Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:21808]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7731/2025

¶4

Manish Hair Art, Through Its Owner Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tanwar S/o Sh. Kishan Tanwar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o J.p. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Having Address At, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.

¶8

Authorized Officer And Deputy Commissioner (North), Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

connected with

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7728/2025

¶12

Gajendra Bagdi S/o Sh. Bhavar Lal Bagdi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o J.p. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Having Address At, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.

¶16

Authorized Officer And Deputy Commissioner (North), Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7729/2025

¶19

Sagar Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Guman Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o J.p. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Having Address At, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.

¶23

Authorized Officer And Deputy Commissioner (North),

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:21808]

[CW-7731/2025]

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7730/2025

¶30

Rawat Welding Works, Through Its Owner Sh. Laxman Singh Rawat S/o Mangu Singh Rawat, Aged About 53 Years, R/o J.p. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶31

----Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Having Address At, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001.

¶34

Authorized Officer And Deputy Commissioner (North), Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ajay Singh

¶37

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶38

Order

¶39

23/05/2025

¶40

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

¶41

For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer incorporated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7731/2025 is taken into consideration.

¶42

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(3 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:21808]

[CW-7731/2025]

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this writ petition may kindly be allowed and entire record of the case may kindly be called for and be perused by this Hon'ble Court, and the respondents may be directed not to demolish or to cause any damage to the shop of the petitioner as described in Para 2 of the Writ Petition and the illegal notice dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure 3) may also be quashed and set aside.

¶47

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, same may kindly be given in favour of the petitioner.

¶48

Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶49

By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned notice dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Ajmer Development Authority under Section 67 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) by which the petitioners have been called upon to submit their reply against the illegal/ unauthorized constructions done by them on the land in question.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not in illegal occupation of the land in question, they are having valid licence to ply their shops and some of them have submitted application for regularization. Counsel submits that detailed reply to the aforesaid notices have been submitted by the petitioner in the Office of the respondents, but without deciding the same and without passing a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents are bent upon to evict/ eject the

[2025:RJ-JP:21808]

[CW-7731/2025]

(4 of 5)

petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶55

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that as many as 89 identical notices under Section 67 of the Act of 2013 have been served upon different persons out of which 69 persons have submitted their reply and the matter is still under consideration for adjudication and the respondents are not taking any action in these matters until a decision is taken. For ready reference, factual report in this regard has been furnished which also indicates that the same thing is narrated by counsel for the respondents.

¶56

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that reply to the notice under Section 67 of the Act of 2013 has been submitted by the petitioners before the respondent-authorities and the matter is subjudice before the authorities and they are in process of deciding the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all these writ petitions by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the reply/ application submitted by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶57

It goes without saying if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law within a period of 15 days thereafter.

[2025:RJ-JP:21808]

[CW-7731/2025]

(5 of 5)

For a period of three and half months, no action would be taken against the petitioners.

¶62

Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶64

Aayush Sharma /5, 19, 20 & 21

Manish Hair Art v. Ajmer Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Hair Art v. Ajmer Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu Kathat S/O Shri Ismail Vs Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority

New Mahatma Gandhi Pvt. Iti and Anr. Vs State Technical Edu Dept Anr.

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Bank of India

Asian College of Para Medical Science Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suneeta Daughter of Raghunath, Wife of Jagmohan Vs Gajram Son of Kripa Singh

Gajendra Bagdi S/O Sh. Bhavar Lal Bagdi Vs Ajmer Development Authority