Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
Krishan Gopal Ajmera S/o Kailash Chander Ajmera – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17588 of 2025
Decided On : 02-12-2025
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Krishan Gopal Ajmera S/o Kailash Chander Ajmera – Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan – Respondent:
Case Overview * Petitioner Status: The petitioner is a tenant of Shop No.5, Anand Dham Temple Premises, Bhilwara, who has been in possession since 2020 and pays rent to the landlord (Respondent No.3) (!) . * Grievance: The petitioner challenged the seizure of the shop by the Municipal Corporation on 26.08.2025, arguing it was illegal and violated principles of natural justice because no notice was served to him (!) (!) . * Core Argument: The petitioner contended that seizure proceedings cannot be initiated without prior notice to the tenant/occupier, citing violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction under Section 194(7)(f) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, as the construction was already completed (!) (!) (!) .
Respondent's Submission * Illegal Construction: The respondents submitted that the shops were constructed without obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation, constituting illegal construction (!) . * Statutory Authority: The respondents argued that Section 194 of the Act applies to both ongoing and completed constructions that violate permissions or sanctioned plans (!) (!) . * Notice Sufficiency: Notices were issued to the owner of the property (Respondent No.3), who failed to respond; therefore, the seizure was lawful (!) . * Alternative Remedy: The remedy of appeal lies under Section 194(12) of the Act before the Director, Local Bodies, making the writ petition not maintainable (!) .
Judicial Findings and Reasoning * Applicability of Section 194: The Court held that Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 applies to constructions that are either under process or completed, provided they are unauthorized or in violation of permissions. Restricting it only to ongoing construction would frustrate the legislative intent (!) (!) . * Power to Seize: Section 194(7)(f) empowers the Chief Municipal Officer to seize premises for enforcing provisions regarding unauthorized construction, regardless of whether the work is ongoing or completed (!) (!) . * Notice to Tenant vs. Owner: The Court ruled that notice to the property owner (Respondent No.3) was sufficient. Since the petitioner is merely an occupier and did not raise the construction or seek permission, there was no requirement to serve notice to the tenant (!) (!) . * Section 245 Analysis: The Court clarified that Section 245 (regarding encroachment on public land) was not applicable as the case involved a shop on private land, and even if considered, the provision allows notice to the owner or the person from whom possession is taken, which was satisfied by notifying the owner (!) (!) . * Precedents: The Court distinguished earlier judgments (Hari Ballabh Baheti and Lokesh Kumar) noting they involved different facts (Trusts vs. Tenants, or discriminatory seizure practices) and are not applicable here (!) (!) . * Alternative Remedy: The Court affirmed that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 194(12) of the Act, and thus the writ petition is not maintainable (!) (!) .
Decision * Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed. * Liberty: The petitioner was granted liberty to seek the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 (!) . * Time Limit: Time spent in litigating the writ petition will be excluded when calculating the condonation of delay for the subsequent appeal (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is a tenant challenged illegal seizure. (Para 5) |
| 2. petitioner argues violation of natural justice. (Para 6) |
| 3. respondents argue for legality of seizure. (Para 7) |
| 4. municipal corporation's authority under section 194. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. prior judgments distinguished; specific facts affect outcomes. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed; alternative remedy available. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition was listed before this Court on 11.11.2025 on which date the respondents were granted a week’s time to file an additional affidavit while placing on record the original construction permission in relation to the construction in question so also detailing out as to whom notices were issued as recorded in the proceedings dated 21.08.2025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the affidavit as directed by this Court on 11.11.2025 could not be filed, however, the original record of the proceedings is available for perusal of the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the pleadings in the writ petition are complete and the matter may be finally heard.
4. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has made following prayer :-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and ;
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notice dated 26.08.2025 (Annex.5) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to remove the illegal seizure with immediate effect over the shop in question situated at Shop No.5 Anand Dham Temple Premises, Bhilwara.
(ii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.
(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”
5. The facts in nutshell, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a tenant of Shop No.5, Anand Dham Temple Premises, Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Shop in question’) constructed by the respondent No.3 – landlord. The petitioner has given a sum of Rs.21 lacs in advance to the respondent No.3 and is also paying sum of Rs.1,000/- per month as rent. Petitioner is in possession of the shop in question since 2020 and is peacefully running his business. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is against the seizure proceedings undertaken by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilwara, whereby the shop in question has been seized on 26.08.2025 on the premise that the shops have been constructed in an illegal manner.
6. While challenging the said seizure proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions :-
(i) The seizure proceedings initiated by the respondent are in complete violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was never served any notice prior to commencement of the seizure proceedings. Therefore, the seizure proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii) Respondents Nos.2 & 3 are hands-in-glove and are attempting to oust the petitioner from the shop in question.
(iii) The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the respondent No.3 and is regularly paying rent to the tune of Rs.1000/- per month as agreed and no default has been committed by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is having hands-in-glove with the respondent No.2 and therefore, has purposefully not responded to the notice issued by the respondent – Municipal Council, Bhilwara prior to undertaking the seizure proceedings.
(iv) The seizure proceedings have been initiated while exercising the powers under Section 194(7)(f) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’). It is stated that the respondent – Municipal Corporation could not have proceeded under Section 194(7)(f) and same can be in
The court determined that notice to the property owner is sufficient for seizure actions under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, thus denying the necessity for tenant notifications in cases of unauth....
The actions of local authorities under statutory provisions must be clearly within jurisdiction; mere allegations of unauthorized use do not suffice for enforcement actions without supporting evidenc....
Point of law: Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the inte....
The respondent authority is the lawful owner of the Final Plot No. 49 and therefore, unauthorized constructions of tin sheet sheds with iron angles and guarders are without any authority of Rules and....
The duty of municipal officers to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, and the need for a well-considered approach by the Civil Court in dealing with applications for temporary in....
Municipal officers have a duty to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, as per the provisions of the law and government directives.
Point of Law : Prevalent situation either in the limits of the Corporation, Municipality or the Panchayat if noticed, it would demonstrate clear apathy on the part of the Authorities towards the citi....
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
