SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3276

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SANGEETA SHARMA
SURENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI RADHABALLABH MAHAJAN – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOTA – Respondent
SAW / 108 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5192-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 108/2026

1. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Radhaballabh Mahajan, R/o B-

48, Seth Bhamashah Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kota (Raj.) And

Presently Residing At 1-Ka-24 Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

2. Durgashankar S/o Shri Radhaballabh Mahajan, R/o B-48,

Seth Bhamashah Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kota (Raj.) And

Presently Residing At 1-Ka-24 Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

3. Shyam Kumar S/o Shri Radhaballabh Mahajan, R/o B-48,

Seth Bhamashah Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kota (Raj.) And

Presently Residing At 1-Ka-24 Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

4. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Radhaballabh Mahajan, R/o B-48,

Seth Bhamashah Krishi Upaj Mandi, Kota (Raj.) And

Presently Residing At 1-Ka-24 Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.)

----Appellants

Versus

1. Municipal Corporation Kota, Through Its Commissioner,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, C.a.d. Circle, Kota (Raj.)

2. Self-Government Department, Rajasthan, Government,

Jaipur Through Its Director, Local Bodies, Near Civil Lines

Phatak, Jaipur.

3. Smt. Nirmala Jain W/o Late Anand Raj Jain, R/o 1-Ka-23

Vigyan Nagar Kota

4. Rajesh Jain S/o Late Anand Raj Jain, R/o 1-Ka-23 Vigyan

Nagar Kota

5. Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Late Anand Raj Jain, R/o 1-Ka-23

Vigyan Nagar Kota

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Alok Chaturvedi &

Mr. Adhiraj Modi

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with

Ms. Tanushka Saxena &

Mr. Rahul Kumar

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

04/02/2026

1. Heard.

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:09:24 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 01:11:49 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:5192-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-108/2026]

2. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single

Judge dated 25.11.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has

disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:

“7. It also appears by perusing the photographs placed on

record that the petitioners were raising new construction

and have also covered the public drainage (nala).

8. Needless to mention here that illegal and unauthorized

constructions have emerged as serious menace to planned

urban development and growth of the cities. Such

constructions not only violate statutory provisions and

building regulations, but also defeat the very purpose of

town planning. Illegal constructions also encroach upon civic

amenities and overburden infrastructure. It is, therefore,

necessary that the authorities act with firmness and

vigilance to curb this growing menace and ensure town

planning schemes are implemented in their true spirit.

9. Under there circumstances, the present petition is

disposed of with the directions to Municipal Corporation,

Kota (Rajasthan) to take appropriate actions in pursuance of

report dated 07.08.2019 for demolishing the illegal

construction. It goes without saying that while taking action

against the petitioners, the Municipal Corporation, Kota

(Rajasthan) cannot ignore the illegalities committed by the

other persons in the same vicinity. Municipal Corporation,

Kota (Rajasthan) is also expected to take action against the

illegal constructions raised in the same vicinity, after

following the due procedure established by law.”

3. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants

submits that as per the provisions of Clause 5.3(2) of the

Rajasthan (Urban Area) Building Regulations, 2020 (for short ‘the

Regulations of 2020’) if nearby area, the construction is on zero

setback then the concerned authority may grant permission for

construction on zero setback from allowing complete 100%

ground coverage. He submits that other area next to the

appellants are on zero setback area and, therefore, the direction

issued by the learned Single Judge of demolition was not called for

and the appellants ought to have been allowed to make a

representation, which they have already made to the authorities,

who were required to examine the same on factual ground and

take a decision.

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:09:24 AM)

(Downloaded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top