Udaipur, September 19: The Civil Judge Court (City-North), Udaipur, has granted interim relief to the owner of Chaplot House in Lovely Estate, Rupsagar (Ayad), by staying the proposed sealing or demolition action by the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA).

The case relates to Plot Nos. 133 and 134, where the UDA had issued a notice under Section 32 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023. The notice described the construction as being in the Rupsagar lake bed and alleged that it had been carried out without approval and without leaving the required setback.

The court has directed that no sealing action be taken against the disputed house until further orders and that status quo be maintained at the site and in the official records.

Notice Issued by UDA

The dispute began after the UDA Tehsildar issued a notice dated September 15, 2026, under Section 32 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act.

According to the notice, the disputed plots were located in the Rupsagar lake bed and construction had allegedly been carried out without the required approval and setback.

The applicant’s side challenged the proposed action before the court and sought an interim injunction.

According to the applicant, the notice was delivered to tenant Yogesh Suthar at around 9 pm on September 17 in the absence of the property owner. The applicant claimed that the authority required a response with documents within a very short period.

When the applicant’s lawyer appeared before the Tehsildar with the required documents and sought to submit the response, the applicant alleged that sufficient time was not granted for an effective hearing.

The applicant further alleged that there was an oral indication that demolition action could be taken without giving an effective opportunity to present the case.

Chaplot House Purchased Through Registered Sale Deed in 2015

During the hearing, advocate Arun Vyas, appearing for the applicant, produced documents including the registered sale deed, lease deed and mutation records.

According to the applicant’s submissions, the two plots have a total built-up area of around 4,780 square feet. The property was purchased from the previous owner, Kankubai, through a registered sale deed dated June 4, 2015.

The house was subsequently registered on August 12, 2015, and possession was stated to have been handed over to the applicants.

The applicant also told the court that mutation of both plots was carried out in their favour by the concerned authority on December 5, 2015.

The documents submitted before the court included the sale deed, lease deed, mutation records and other relevant papers.

Applicant Questions Selective Action

The applicant’s side also submitted that around 150 houses have existed in the area for several years, but similar action had not been taken against them.

It was further submitted that construction was continuing on Plot No. 132, located to the south of the disputed property, and that no objection had been raised by the UDA against that construction.

The applicant’s side raised questions over the timing and circumstances in which the notice was issued.

Court Examines 10-Year Provision

One of the key legal issues before the court was Section 32(1) of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023.

The court examined the provision, which deals with action in specified circumstances concerning development and provides for proceedings within the prescribed period.

During its prima facie examination of the documents, the court noted that the disputed house had been purchased in a constructed condition in 2015. The applicant’s case was that the house had actually been constructed even before the purchase.

The court observed that the question of whether the UDA could exercise its power under Section 32 in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the period relating to the construction, required examination.

The court also observed at the interim stage that the notice on record did not clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Section 32.

Court Grants Interim Relief to Chaplot House

After examining the documents and submissions, the court found that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the applicant at this stage.

The court, however, made it clear that its observations were only prima facie and should not be treated as a final finding on the merits of the case.

The application for an interim temporary injunction was therefore allowed.

The UDA has been directed not to take any sealing action against the disputed Chaplot House until further orders. The court has also ordered that status quo be maintained at the site and in the official records.

The interim order has, for now, halted the proposed action against the property.

The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for October 30, 2026, when the court will consider the further responses and records before proceeding with the dispute.