JUDGMENT 1. - Counsel submits that despite judgment dated 05/02/2009 (Ann.4) being passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) Ajmer in Civil Suit No.44/1997, a list of such old buildings allegedly in dilapidated condition has been published in news paper dated 13/09/2010 (Ann.12) and in view whereof, his apprehension is that the respondents may take a decision to demolish his house in which he is residing for years together. 2. It appears from the record that against notice dated 16/08/1995 (Ann.1) issued Under section 200(2) of Rajasthan Municipality Act, reply was submitted by petitioner, civil suit was filed before the Civil Judge and pending proceedings, learned trial Judge obtained report from PWD about condition of petitioner's house (No.388/4) situated at Dargarh Bazar, Ajmer known as Saklecha Bhawan and Executive Engineer PWD Ajmer submitted a positive report dated 30/11/2004 (Ann.7) and further report was submitted by Asstt. Engineer PWD Ajmer on 09/03/2005 (Ann.8) - on the basis whereof, judgment dated 05/02/2009 (Ann.4) was passed by Civil Judge holding that respondents shall not take any action against property of the petitioner (Saklecha Bhawan) without obtaining technical report and inspection through expert body and after obtaining technical report and adopting procedures provided under law. 3. Counsel further submits that no such technical report has been obtained and atleast petitioner has not been supplied with such report, if having been obtained; contrarily respondents may initiate proceedings for demolition of his house only on the premise that the Municipal Council Ajmer has considered it being in a dilapidated condition. It appears to be apprehension of the petition. Once judgment dated 05/02/2009 (Ann.4) has been passed by learned Civil Judge, respondents are always under obligation to take further action in the light whereof ad infra: " ,rn~}kjk okn oknh fo:) izfroknh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh fookfnr lEifRr lDyspk Hkou dks fcuk rduhdh fo'ks"kK dh tkap djok;s fcuk ,oa fcuk fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s rksM+&QksM+ ugha djsaxs] u"V ugha djsaxs ,oa u gh fxjkus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh djs A " 4. However, no notice independently was served upon but it was expected from the authority before taking action in the matter of property of petitioner (Saklecha Bhawan), which they may carry out through procedure being adopted only in terms of the judgment & decree dated 05/02/2009 (Ann.4) and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. However, no notice independently was served upon but it was expected from the authority before taking action in the matter of property of petitioner (Saklecha Bhawan), which they may carry out through procedure being adopted only in terms of the judgment & decree dated 05/02/2009 (Ann.4) and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. With the observations (supra), writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent-2.Writ Petition Disposed of. *******