Developing the urbanization in Iran, particularly after the Islamic Revolution, has brought urban issues such as informal settlements, traffic congestion, and agricultural land-use changes to the forefront. One of the most significant challenges in this context is the multiplicity of decision-making bodies in urban affairs, particularly the separation of policymaking entities from implementing authorities. The lack of adequate enforcement for the decisions of policymaking entities, such as the Supreme Council for Urban Planning and Architecture, along with financial constraints in urban management, raises concerns that urban planning principles may be overlooked. The foundation of the urban legal system in Iran primarily traces back to pre-revolution laws. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to answer whether administrative adjudication has succeeded in addressing the deficiencies of the legal system by establishing dynamic and developmental practices. In other words, can administrative adjudication assist decision-making bodies in resolving urban challenges through forward-thinking interpretations and practical applications of legal texts in alignment with contemporary needs? An examination of the performance of the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court reveals that judicial oversight follows the concept of a "red light" approach. Literal interpretations of legal texts, disregarding the intent of the legislature.