Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : C.S. Kotwani, Tushar Thanvi
For the Respondents: Rajesh Panwar, Monal Chug

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 (!) .