ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Under challenge is the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’) whereby it has been directed that the unauthorized construction of the petitioner be removed and in the event of it not being capable of, being so removed, it be sealed. 2. Mr. Prahlad Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 20.11.2017 is vitiated for having been passed, without an opportunity to set up the petitioner's defence to the reference petition. It has been submitted that the matter was listed after the notice on 20.11.2017 before the Tribunal and was decided on the same date. It has been further submitted that unauthorized construction of the petitioner was earlier removed and no authorized construction now obtains, yet its removal has been directed by the JDA Tribunal in a mechanical manner on the mere askance of the respondent. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. It does not appear from the impugned order that at any time/opportunity for filing the reply was sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal. And presumption with regard to the correctness of the record of the Tribunal obtains. There is nothing on record even prima facie for rebuttal of the said presumption. 5. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of Mr. Prahlad Sharma, that the petitioner was not allowed an opportunity to file reply to the reference petition before the Tribunal. Further the tribunal has only directed that unauthorized construction of the petitioner be removed and in the event of such construction not being capable of removal for some technical reasons it be sealed. There can be no interference with such order passed by the Tribunal. 6. It however goes without saying that in the event the construction of the petitioner is not illegal and/or unauthorized it would not be obviously liable to be removed or sealed. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.