Order : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.11.2024 a request was made to list this petition along-with SBCWP No.7480/2011. The contention is that the said petition pertains to acquisition of the land, whereas the present petition is filed aggrieved of seizure of the Marriage Garden and hence be dealt with separately. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is detached and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18148/2024 is taken up for hearing. 4. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority and the seizure order dated 22.10.2024. 5. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was running a Marriage Garden on an agricultural land situated at Tehsil Thok Teliyan, District Ajmer. The acquisition proceedings for the land in question were initiated by issuance of notification dated 04.12.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894. The challenge to the acquisition was made before this Court by filing a writ petition. An interim order was passed on 17.11.2011 that the proceedings for acquisition may be carried out but the petitioner shall not be physically dispossessed from the property in question without prior permission of the Court. On 01.10.2024, Ajmer Development Authority issued notice to show cause that the Marriage Garden was being run without conversion of the agricultural land for commercial purpose and without obtaining requisite permissions from the competent authorities. 6. As per the petitioner, the reply was filed on 22.10.2024 whereas, the acknowledgment receipt of the reply was of 23.10.2024. The seizure order was passed on 22.10.2024. The Authorities in pursuance to the seizure order proceeded to seize the disputed premises, however, the petitioner on 23.10.2024 furnished an affidavit to voluntarily close the Marriage Garden after conclusion of the ceremony being held in the Marriage Garden on 23.10.2024. The undertaking for closure was given reserving the legal rights. The petitioner filed an appeal along-with stay application. The Appellate Authority on 30.10.2024 issued notice to the respondents in appeal and held that the case is not made for granting stay without hearing the respondents. Hence, the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue the matter on merits challenging the seizure order. The petitioner filed an appeal along-with stay application. The Appellate Authority on 30.10.2024 issued notice to the respondents in appeal and held that the case is not made for granting stay without hearing the respondents. Hence, the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue the matter on merits challenging the seizure order. It is further argued that the petitioner is suffering an irreparable loss due to non grant of interim protection during pendency of the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order, submits that the stay application is still pending and the Appellate Authority has only ordered that no case is made out for grant of stay without hearing other party. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the contentions be dealt with on merits. 10. The petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal challenging the seizure order and cannot be permitted to simultaneously avail two remedies by challenging the seizure order in the present petition. 11. So far as the challenge to the order dated 30.10.2024 is concerned, the order is self explanatory that the Appellate Authority had issued notice and stay application is to be decided after hearing the other side. 12. The contention that the petitioner is suffering an irreparable loss due to not staying the operation of the impugned order of the seizure, lacks merit. As per the seizure order, the petitioner is running the marriage garden without getting the agricultural land converted for commercial purposes albeit, as per the petitioner no conversion is required but this issue would be subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority. 13. It cannot be lost sight of that the seizure order has been passed not only on the ground that the land was not converted for commercial purposes but also on the fact that the required approvals from competent authorities were not taken for running the Marriage Garden. It would not be out of place to mention that even in the writ petition, no documents have been annexed to prima-facie establish that the required permissions are there with the petitioner to run the Marriage Garden. The argument that petitioner is suffering irreparable loss due to non functioning of the Marriage Garden is pitted against safety of the public, solemnizing ceremonies in the Marriage Garden not having requisite permissions and in such circumstances latter would prevail. The argument that petitioner is suffering irreparable loss due to non functioning of the Marriage Garden is pitted against safety of the public, solemnizing ceremonies in the Marriage Garden not having requisite permissions and in such circumstances latter would prevail. 14. There is no factual or legal error in the order dated 30.10.2024 calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed. 15. The observations made here-in-above were for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and it shall not be construed as an opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy.