Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Radhaballabh ... vs Municipal Corporation Kota ... on 4 February, 2026
[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 10/02/2026 at 06:33:02 PM) [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 on 10/02/2026 at 06:33:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:5192-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-108/2026]
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, pointed out that the appellants have constructed the building on zero setback area while the respondents, who are their next door neighbour, have left the setback area. He further submits that even the other side, the house is a residential house where there has been a setback left on the front road. The nearby other residences also have left the setback. Photographs have been placed before us for perusal, which need not be taken note of by us at this stage. However, suffice it to note that the appellants were raising new constructions in the residential area. A minimum setback is required to be left. So far as zero setback as referred to in Clause 5.3(2) of the Regulations of 2020 is concerned, it is only with regard to certain areas where there is a dense population, as can be seen from Clause 5.3(2) of the Regulations of 2020. Thus, the provisions of Clause 5.3(2) of the Regulations of 2020 would have no application to the present case. It would be apposite to quote Clause 5.3 of the Regulations of 2020 as under:
^^5- Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr gsrq ekin.Mksa dk fu/kkZj.k%& 5-1 --------------
5-2 --------------
5-3 ,l&3 {ks= ¼l?ku vkcknh {ks=½ esa Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq ekun.M%& 1½ ijEijkxr :i ls fodflr xSj fu;ksftr {ks=] l?ku vkcknh {ks=ksa] dPph cLrh {ks=ksa dk fu/kkZj.k gsrq lacaf/kr LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk losZ fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ,sls xSj fu;ksftr {ks= ftuesa bu Hkou fofu;eksa ds ykxw gksus ls iwoZ 90 izfr"kr ls vf/kd {ks= esa ijEijkxr :i ls l?ku vkcknh fodflr gqbZ gks] dh lwph mudh lhekvksa dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq,] rS;kj dh tkosxh rFkk mDr lwph dks lacaf/kr fudk; dh e.My@cksMZ cSBd esa vuqeksfnr djok;k tkdj lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA bldh izfr jkT; ljdkj dks izsf'kr dh tkosxhA mDr dk;Zokgh bu Hkou fofu;eksa ds izHkko esa vkus ds i'pkr~ ,d ekg esa lacaf/kr LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk dh tkosxhA bl izdkj fu/kkZfjr l?ku vkcknh {ks=ksa gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkou fofu;e 5-3 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj ekSds dh fLFkfr vuqlkj Hkou ekun.M o Hkou js[kk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr nh tk ldsaxhA 2½ mDr {ks=ksa esa ekStqnk Hkou js[kk o {ks= ds vkl&ikl ds Lo:i] Hkou js[kk lSVcsd bR;kfn dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lSVcsd o xzkm.M dojst dk fu/kkZj.k l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA vFkkZr~ vkl&ikl ds (Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:09:24 AM) (Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 06:33:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:5192-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-108/2026] {ks= esa ;fn "kwU; lSVcsd ij fuekZ.k gks rks "kwU; lSVcsd j[krs gq, "kr izfr"kr xzkm.M dojst j[krs gq, l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr fuEukuqlkj izko/kku j[krs gq, nh tk ldsxh%&
(i) Hkw[k.M ds lkeus fLFkr lMd dh pkSMkbZ 9 ehVj rd gksus ij vkoklh; mi;ksx gsrq vf/kdre mWpkbZ 9 ehVj ¼Hkwry++ $2 eafty½ rd ds gh fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh tk ldsxhA
(ii) Hkw[k.M ds lkeus fLFkr lMd dh pkSMkbZ 9 ls vf/kd gksus ij vkoklh; mi;ksx gsrq vf/kdre mWpkbZ 12 ehVj ¼Hkwry$3 eafty½ rd ds gh fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh tk ldsxhA LVhYV ¶yksj dsoy ikfdZax gsrq izLrkfor djus ij LVhYV ¶yksj ds Åij ds ry dks Hkw&ry ekuk tkosxkA
(iii) 9 ehVj o mlls vf/kd pkSMh lMdks ij ;fn ijEijkxr :i ls okf.kfT;d@fefJr Hkw&mi;ksx fuekZ.k fLFkr gks rks dsoy Hkwry ij Hkw[k.M ds lkeus fLFkr lMd dh pkSMkbZ ds cjkcj xgjkbZ rd okf.kfT;d@fefJr Hkw&mi;ksx fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh tk ldsxhA Åij dh vf/kdre nks eaftyksa ij dsoy vkoklh;@fefJr mi;ksx gsrq fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh tk ldsxhA okf.kfT;d fuekZ.k gsrq bu fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj ikfdZax miyC/k djok;k tkuk laHko ugha gks rks fu/kkZfjr nj ls ikfdZax "kqYd olwy fd;k tkosxkA ,slh dksbZ okf.kfT;d xfrfof/k ;Fkk Fkksd O;kikj] xksnke vkfn gsrq Lohd`fr ugha nh tk ldsxh] ftuds dkj.k Hkkjh okguksa dk vkokxeu gksrks gks ;k /ofu iznw'k.k ;k ;krk;kr izHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk gksrh gksA
(iv) fcUnq la[;k (i),(ii) o (iii) esa mYysf[kr mWpkbZ@izko/kkuksa ds vykok vf/kd mWpkbZ ;k okf.kfTd@laLFkkxr mi;ksx izLrkfor fd;s tkus ij fofu;e 5-5 ds vuqlkj bu fofu;eksa esa uohu ;kstukvksa gsrq izLrkfor rkfydk &1 ds vuqlkj lSVcsd o vU; leLr izko/kku j[krs gq, Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr nh tk ldrh gSA^^
5. The contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants are, therefore, not accepted. The directions passed by the learned Single Judge do not require any interference.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/12 (Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 11:09:24 AM) (Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 06:33:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)