Hemant Hair Saloon Vs Ajmer Development Authority

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 608/2026

Hemant Hair Saloon through its owner Sh. Hemraj Sen s/o Sh. Ramswaroop Sen, Aged About 34 Years, R/o J.P. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary assisted by
		Mr. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi, Mr. Parth Singh Dhaked, Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, Ms. Sneha Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Divanshu Gupta, Ms. Simran Sharma, Mr. TanishqJhavery

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

16/01/2026

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent-Ajmer Development Authority under Section 67(3) of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013, in Case No.14/2025 titled as 'Tehsildar (North), Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer Vs. Hemant Hair Saloon' .

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of the impugned notice and the proceedings initiated by the respondents are illegal and invalid, as the petitioner has not encroached upon any government land rather petitioner's shop is situated on a private Khatedari land bearing Khasra No. 58/2956 which belongs to Smt. Veera Devi wife of Shri Kartar Singh, therefore, a notice under Section 67 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 cannot be issued in respect of the private Khatedari land bearing Khasra No.58/2956. He further submits that the land bearing Khasra No. 16/3282 situated in revenue village Kiranpura is recorded as government land, which is merely adjacent to the petitioner's shop (Khasra No. 52/2965, Private land) and the petitioner is carrying on his business over the said shop and has been in continuous possession for a long time. Thus, prayed for allowing of the present writ petition.

¶16

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has no valid right, title or interest over the property in question and that the notice issued by the respondents is valid. He further places reliance on the order dated 11.11.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.¹ , submitting that the encroachments are being removed pursuant to the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, and if at all the petitioner wants to submit anything, they should move an appropriate application in D.B.C.W.P. No.

¶17

1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17725/2024

¶18

(3 of 5)

¶19

17725/2024 (Supra) ; and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the entire drive for removal of encroachments is being carried out pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the division bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Sharma (Supra) . It would be apt to reproduce the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Sharma (Supra) , which reads as under:

¶22

"1. The reply has been filed. We are not impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that the shops which are coming in the way of the road should be allowed to continue and it is well settled for the purpose of the larger good, some people have to suffer, however, the authorities shall take steps to give alternative place to the shopkeepers whose shops are coming in way under the Master Development Plan (Ajmer region) 2013-2033.

¶23

2. The Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority shall also take steps to remove all encroachments on the sides of the main roads of Ajmer City and the squatters and other street vendors would only be allowed to operate from earmarked vending zones. The vending zones in this regard shall be earmarked positively within a period of one month from today and such squatters and vendors who have not only set up their small business but have also set up their own residences just next to adjacent to the road inviting untoward accidents ought to be removed. Such encroachers do not have any right to set up their shacks on the sides of the roads which are a part of the public way and essentially for the purpose of pedestrians.

¶24

3. A drive in this respect shall be conducted under the supervision of the Collector, Ajmer And Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, who shall be personally responsible to see that encroachments in and around Ajmer are removed effectively once for all. If any new encroachments are made, fines may be imposed apart from removing them and criminal complaints for trespassing and other offence may also be registered if the encroachments are repeated.

¶25

3. A compliance report shall be filed before this Court on the next date along with sufficient proofs and photographs.

¶26

4. List this matter on 15.12.2025."

¶27

(4 of 5)

¶28

The record of the case reflects that in furtherance of the above directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents have issued the impugned notices and initiated proceedings for the removal of encroachment on public roads which are coming in the way under the Master Development Plan (Ajmer Region) 2013-2033.

¶29

In view of the above, it is evident that since the Division Bench of this Court is currently seized of the controversy involved in the present matter and has also issued directions for producing a compliance report in the matter; therefore it would not be proper for this Court to intervene and pass any order or direction at this stage.

¶30

In that view of the matter, and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, the issue of judicial propriety and discipline which is the hallmark of this institution, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Division Bench in Jitendra Kumar Sharma (Supra) , seeking redressal of their grievance within a period of 15 days from today. 9. However, looking to the possibility of immediate demolition of shop/dispossession of the petitioner even prior to approaching the Division Bench of this Court, in the interest of justice and in order to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard in the matter, during the intervening period of these 15 days only, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.12.2025.

¶31

(5 of 5)

¶32

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

The stay application as well as the other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶35

Seema/C

Hemant Hair Saloon v. Ajmer Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Hair Saloon v. Ajmer Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhing Ram Son of Shri Dharam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Gauri Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shree Salasar Associates Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sagar Singh Rawat S/O Sh. Guman Singh Vs Ajmer Development Authority

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

Rawat Welding Works Vs Ajmer Development Authority