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