1 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.254/2008 Municipal Council, Udaipur. vs. M/s. Udaipur Ice Factory. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.254/2008 Municipal Council, Udaipur. vs. M/s. Udaipur Ice Factory. Date : 27.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.BS Charan, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Mankad, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Execution Case No.18/2007. The executing court observed that the decree holder was supposed to commence the construction work in pursuance of the permission granted by the petitioner Municipal Council, Udaipur within a period of one year and it is not necessary that he should complete the construction work within one year. The executing court also observed that the decree holder is constructing the building as per the 2 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.254/2008 Municipal Council, Udaipur. vs. M/s. Udaipur Ice Factory. sanctioned plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the garb of sanctioned plan, if the respondent will raise construction beyond the permission granted and beyond the area, then they have the right to take action according to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. So far as this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there cannot be any dispute because of the reason that any person who sought permission to raise construction of a building can certainly raise the building as per the approved plan and local bodies have jurisdiction to see that there may not be any deviation or variation from the map approved. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the impugned order. The construction is a continuous process and admittedly, the construction has been commenced by the respondent and if the respondent deviates from the map approved, then the petitioner can take recourse to the action available under the Act of 1959. But so far as the impugned order is concerned, there is no illegality. 3 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.254/2008 Municipal Council, Udaipur. vs. M/s. Udaipur Ice Factory. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent is not deviating from the approved plan. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya