JUDGMENT : Jaishree Thakur, J. This appeal has been filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.10.2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant no.1 Hari Ballabh Baheti Memorial Charitable Trust filed a writ petition through its Managing Trustees with averments that a Patta was issued on 13.11.1942 by District Hakim of Bhilwara in the name of Hari Ballabh Bagtawarmal for construction of 'sarai' over the land situated in Bhilwara. Another Patta of strip of land adjacent to aforesaid plot was later on issued in favour of Bagtawarmal s/o Hari Ballabh on 10.8.1943 measuring 131 x 12½ ft. The condition imposed in the Patta issued in 1942 was that the land would be used only for the purpose of construction of Sarai, with a further stipulation that no ownership right will be conferred on any one at any point in time in the future. After the death of Hari Ballabh, his son Seth Bagtawarmal created a Trust in the name of Seth Hari Ballabh Baheti Memorial Charitable Trust, Bhilwara on 2.10.1964 and the said land was given to the said Trust to be used as a Dharamshala. The Trust thereafter used the said Dharamshala for public at large for the purpose of staying and for social ceremonies. Several shops were also constructed out side the Dharamshala, on the periphery of this land after seeking due permission from the local authorities. 3. A notice dated 12.6.2013 was sent by the District Collector, Bhilwara to the appellants-petitioners and the same was served on 20.6.2013, to show cause as to why the Dharamshala constructed on the leased land be not closed since the Dharamshala was not being utilised as per the terms of the lease and was being used for commercial activities. The notice dated 12.6.2013 gave appellants-petitioners three days' time to submit its explanation, failing which the appellants-petitioners would be proceeded ex parte. The Trustees immediately sent a reply to the notice dated 12.6.2013 on the very next date, i.e. 21.6.2013 explaining that they were not using the Dharamshala for commercial purpose but the same was used for the public at large. The District Collector son 24.6.2013 ealed and took over the premises. 4. The Trustees immediately sent a reply to the notice dated 12.6.2013 on the very next date, i.e. 21.6.2013 explaining that they were not using the Dharamshala for commercial purpose but the same was used for the public at large. The District Collector son 24.6.2013 ealed and took over the premises. 4. Aggrieved against the action of the Collector, directing seizure of the Dharamshala and sealing of the premises, the appellants-petitioners approached this Court alleging that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Bapi Patta issued as far back as on 13.11.1942 and it was submitted that Dharamshala was being used for public purpose. It was also contended that show cause notice dated 12.6.2013 was issued to the Trust and the same was served on 20.6.2014 giving only three days time to the appellants-petitioners to file reply. The reply was furnished on 21.6.2013 itself, but without considering the reply submitted by the appellants-petitioners, the order has been passed. The appellant-petitioner have alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the count that it has been denied opportunity of hearing before the seizure and closure of the Dharamshala run by the Trust. The matter came to be heard by the learned Single Judge, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the property had already been repossessed on account of violation of the terms of the original Patta, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Collector. 5. In appeal, the counsel for the appellants has contended that the order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhilwara has been passed only on the basis of an enquiry report without taking into account the detailed reply submitted by the appellants-petitioners herein and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants-petitioners. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 7. Admittedly, a notice dated 12.6.2013 was issued to the appellants-petitioners wherein it was stated that the appellants-petitioners were misusing the lease allotted to it. In the said notice, it was stated that commercial activities were being carried on in the premises which were against the terms of the Patta issued. Three days' time was given to the appellants-petitioners to respond to the said notice. The appellants replied on 21.6.2013 sending a detailed reply by registered post on 21.6.2013. In the said notice, it was stated that commercial activities were being carried on in the premises which were against the terms of the Patta issued. Three days' time was given to the appellants-petitioners to respond to the said notice. The appellants replied on 21.6.2013 sending a detailed reply by registered post on 21.6.2013. The District Collector on 24.6.2013, ordered for sealing of the premises on the ground that there was misuse of the lease granted. Placing reliance upon the enquiry, the District Collector concluded that a Dharamshala is not being run and the premises are being put to commercial use. The order dated 24.6.2013 also noted that no reply had been filed by the notices, namely, appellants-petitioners. 8. Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the District Collector for taking appropriate decision after hearing the appellants-petitioners concerned. Undoubtedly, the appellants-petitioners have been in possession of the premises as far back as 1942 when a Patta was issued in favour of Hari Ballabh Bagtawarmal. Sealing and closure of the Dharamshala without giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants-petitioners and without taking into consideration reply filed, is against the principles of natural justice. Adequate opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellants-petitioners to present its case before sealing of the property. The principles of natural justice have clearly been violated by the respondents in so far as there has been no consideration of the reply sent. We deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector to re-hear the matter after giving notice and full opportunity of hearing to the appellants-petitioners to defend and present its case. Needful be done within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The appeal is disposed with the above directions, while setting aside the judgment of the Single Bench.