Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (1 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9997/2024
M/s Supertech Properties Pvt. Ltd., having its registered
address behind Super Sales Corporation, Jal Chakki, Kankroli,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan, through its Authorized
Representative Naresh Chandel S/o Shri Giriraj Chandel, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Jal Chakki, Kankrolim District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through lits
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9988/2024
Ashok Kumawat S/o Dharam Narayan Kumawat, Aged About
61 Years, R/o 221, Dharmraj Sadan, Diamond Colony,
Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development And Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through ots
Secretary
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10016/2024
1. Smt. Surbhi Bhandari W/o Shri Harit Bhandari, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 16, Flora Modern Complex, Bhuwana,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (2 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
2. Smt. Rupal Bhandari W/o Shri Kalit Bhandari, Aged About
56 Years, R/o House No. 31, Near Hotel Lakend, Alkapuri,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, through its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10017/2024
Mahendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Hukam Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Surya Niwas, 6-7, Shekhawat Marg, Modern
Complex, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10065/2024
Smt. Snehlata Bansal W/o Shri Anant Kumar Agarwal, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o 92-A, Jagat Mehta Ki Bari, Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (3 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10054/2024
1. Pradeep Lunawat S/o Shri Mangi Lal Lunawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o B-132, Aravali Minerals And
Chemicals, M.I.A., Madri, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Vijayshree Lunawat W/o Shri Pradeep Lunawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o L3/53, Jai Shree Colony, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Anushree Lunawat W/o Shri Sunil Lunawat, Aged About
47 Years, R/o L 3/53, Jaishree Colony, Dhoolkot,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chandra Vajawat W/o Shri Rakesh Vajawat, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 47, Gokul Nagar, Near Bohra Ji Ganesh
Temple, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sneha Vajawat D/o Shri Rakesh Vajawat, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 47, Gokul Nagar, Near Bohra Ji Ganesh
Temple, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur Through Its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10074/2024
1. Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Shanti Lal Maroo, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o 13-14, Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Geeta Agarwal W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o 19-C, Opposite Tirveni
Hospital, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (4 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10049/2024
Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Shanti Lal Maroo, Aged About 67
Years, R/o 13-14, Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10047/2024
Smt. Geeta Agarwal W/o Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Aged About
64 Years, R/o 19-C, Opposite Triveni Hospital, Old Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr.Samyak Dalal, Adv.
Mr.J.S.Saluja, Adv.
Mr.Vedant Agrwal, Adv.
Mr.Pranjul Mehta, Adv.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (5 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vijay Purohit, Adv.
Mr.Ayush Gehlot for
Mr.Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Mr.Shubham Ojha, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 26/05/2025
(CWP No.10054/2025 was reserved on 10/07/2025)
Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025
1. This order disposes of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.
9997/2024, 9988/2024, 10016/2024, 10017/2024, 10065/2024,
10054/2024, 10074/2024, 10049/2024 and 10047/2024.
2. The challenge in the above writ petitions pertains to
orders dated 29.05.29024 passed by the Udaipur Development
Authority, whereby layout approval dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023
and consequential allotments and execution of lease-deeds in
favour of the writ petitioners have been cancelled.
3. In addition to the above reliefs, the petitioners have
also challenged the directions issued by the Deputy Secretary,
Department of Urban Development and Housing, vide letter dated
19.03.2025, to the Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority.
These directions included instructions to initiate proceedings for
the cancellation of the layout plans and the consequential
cancellation of allotments and lease deeds, along with several
other directives. Further, the petitioners have also challenged the
communication dated 24.02.2025 issued by the Secretary, Udaipur
Development Authority, whereby the lease deeds were kept in
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (6 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
abeyance and prohibitory orders were issued, restraining transfer,
sub-division, amalgamation, mutation, change of use, grant of
building permissions, and further construction. Additionally, the
petitioners have challenged the communications dated 27.02.2025
and 28.02.2025, which were issued in compliance with the letter
dated 19.03.2025.
4. The facts in all the writ petitions are almost common and
are referred to hereinafter for the disposal of the aforementioned
two writ petitions. The writ petitioners are the owners of khatedari
lands. The agricultural lands were converted into non-agricultural
land under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as “the RLR Act, 1956”) by orders passed
in the year 2007-2008. The layout plans were approved by the
Urban Improvement Trust of Udaipur. The approved layout plans
were prepared large plot-wise for group housing purposes. During
the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021-2023, the
petitioners made applications for approval of fresh demarcated
plans demarcating large plots into small group housing plots. The
said demarcated plans were approved by the Layout Plan
Committee, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023.
Subsequently, the allotment letters were issued and lease deeds
were executed in favour of the petitioners.
5. An audit was conducted by the Local Fund Authority for
the years 2022-2024, and in the audit, the authorities found
various contraventions and financial irregularities. The objections
were noted by them, and the Udaipur Development Authority,
which was constituted under the provisions of the Udaipur
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (7 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
Development Authority Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act of 2023”), was directed to respond to the objections.
6. In compliance with the objections raised by the Local Fund
Authority, the Secretary of the Udaipur Development Authority
issued various interim directions, including the suspension of the
layout plans and lease deeds, along with several other related
orders. Meanwhile, the Department of Urban Development and
Housing, Government of Rajasthan, issued a letter dated
19.03.2025 directing the Udaipur Development Authority to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the authorities who had
approved the layout plans and issued the allotments and lease
deeds. The Udaipur Development Authority was also directed to
initiate proceedings for the cancellation of the layout, allotments,
and execution of lease deeds. Further directions were issued to
inform the Regional Authority not to permit any construction
activities and to communicate the proposed actions to the District
Collector. In addition to issuing a general public notice warning the
general public, the Udaipur Development Authority also initiated
proceedings for cancellation of the layouts by referring the matter
to its Layout Plan Committee.
7. The Udaipur Development Authority passed its decision
dated 29.05.2024 cancelling the approval of demarcated map and
consequently allotment letters and execution of sale-deeds were
kept in abeyance and notices for cancellation of allotment and
lease deed were issued. Challenging the same, the present writ
petitions have been filed.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (8 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
8. The cancellation of the layout plan, allotments, and
execution of the lease deeds were primarily based on the ground
of sub-division of the originally approved large group housing plots
into smaller group housing plots. Subsequently, approved layout
plans for group housing were found to be contrary to the
provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division,
Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1975”) and the Rajasthan
Township Policy, 2010. The second ground cited was that as per
the prevailing policy, the ratio of saleable area to facility area must
be 60:40, whereas the ratio of the saleable area indicated in the
demarcated plans are over and above prescribed ratio allowing
such a saleable area over and above the ratio are contrary to the
Township Policy, 2010. The third ground was the absence of any
provision in the approved plan for EWS/LIG plots, which are
required to be included in accordance with the Prashaasan
Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan. The fourth ground was that the sub-
division of an existing single plot having an area of more than
3000 Sq. Mtrs. cannot be permitted without the sanction of the
State Government. The last ground was that one of the Khatedars,
who had a joint interest in the subject land, had complained about
the layout plan, and the layouts were approved in respect of lands
that were not partitioned among the co-owners, which is contrary
to the Regulations.
9. There are other prayers in the present writ petitions and
they relate to the challenges against various interim orders passed
by the Udaipur Development Authority and they have lost their
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (9 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
significance due to the passing of final order cancelling the layout
thereby interim orders were merged with final orders. As such
adjudication on the validity of such interim orders is now
unwarranted.
10. The case of the respondents is that the present writ
petitions are not maintainable, and the existing approved layout
plans prepared plot-wise for group housing purposes was contrary
to various provisions of buildings laws, the Township Policy, 2010,
and the Rules of 1975. Such approvals were the result of
misrepresentation of facts, collusion, and contravention of the
above-mentioned statutory provisions.
11. It is also pleaded that the invalid approval and the
consequential allotments and issuance of lease deeds caused
financial losses amounting to crores of rupees. The further case of
the respondents is that, in pursuant to audit objections, an
internal enquiry was conducted. Such an enquiry report is not
required to be furnished to the petitioners as it was an internal
administrative exercise, and the petitioners have no right to
participate in it.
12. The respondents also justified the invocation of powers
under Section 52 of the Act of 2023 read with Section 23 of the
Rajasthan General Clauses Act 1955. Section 52 of the Act of 2023
enables the respondents to cancel layout plan, allotments and
lease deeds if they were obtained through misrepresentation of
facts or collusion, or if such approvals were granted in
contravention of law. The impugned orders, according to the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (10 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
respondents, were passed with due application of mind in the
backdrop of prevailing circumstances, and the writ petitions are
therefore misconceived; and prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels on record
for both the petitioners and the respondents.
14. The only issue before this Court in the present writ
petitions is whether the impugned orders dated 29.05.2024,
whereby the layout approval granted in favour of the petitioners in
the year 2023 were cancelled, are sustainable in law, both on
merits and in light of the relevant statutory provisions.
15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the impugned orders of cancellation of the layout
plans are liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the
requirement of Section 52 of the Act of 2023 are not satisfied. The
above statutory provisions mandate the issuance of a show-cause
notice incorporating the grounds on which such action is proposed.
In the present case, no such notice was issued. Thus, ex facie, the
order is unsustainable in the eye of law.
15.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that Section 52 of the Act of 2023 is applicable only to
cases involving the cancellation of allotments and pattas, and does
not extend to the revocation of layout plans approved by the
Layout Plan Committee. According to him, the powers exercised
by the Layout Approval Committee in cancelling a previously
approved layout plan are without jurisdiction. Allowing such a
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (11 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
power to be exercised would amount to a review of its earlier
decision, which can only be undertaken with statutory back up,
which is absent in this case.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the grounds on which the impugned orders of
cancellation of the layout, allotment, and lease deeds were passed
are unsustainable in light of various statutory provisions and the
orders of the State Government issued from time to time. It is
also submitted that the respondent authorities have
misunderstood the provisions of the Rules of 1975 in dealing with
the sub-division and reconstitution of the existing single plot for
group housing. The learned Senior Counsel, while referring to Rule
12 of the Rules of 1975, contended that the requirement to obtain
sanction of the State Government would arise in cases where the
approval is to be accorded for a residential plot if it is larger than
1500/3000 Sq. Yds. Such approval is not required when the
intended plot size is below 1500/3000 Sq. Yds. The divided plots
were of 750 Sq. yards, which cannot be said to be larger than the
prescribed area so as to require approval of the State
Government.
17. It is also his submission that the demarcation of the plan
was made based on the policy adopted by the State Government
during the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, as per the
Government order dated 20.09.2021. He also submitted that a
minimum plot area of 750 Sq. yards. was required to be
maintained as per the Building Regulations, and since the plot
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (12 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
does not exceed 1500/3000 Sq. Yds., it cannot be said that the
sanction of the State Government is required.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
also contended that the 60:40 ratio is not applicable to the cases
where the layout plan was approved for group housing or flats
development. For group housing, the saleable area can also be
100%. The ratio of 60:40 is maintained only in cases of individual
development of plots for independent residential units. The
learned counsel to support his contention also relied upon Circular
dated 25.02.2009, more particularly Clause 11 of the said Circular,
which specifically excludes the applicability of 60% and 40% ratio
for group housing.
19. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the
requirement of providing 5% of the saleable area for EWS/LIG as
per the Policy of 2010 has been relaxed. Instead of including a
specific clause for the EWS/LIG category, a provision was made
under the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) Shelter Fund,
whereby the developer can pay the charges as determined in lieu
of reserving such an area. This condition was further relaxed by
virtue of the proceedings dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure 22), which
neither require reserving 5% of the saleable area for EWS/LIG nor
the payment of charges, in view of the relaxation of this condition.
20. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
complaints of khatedari holders have not been brought to the
notice of the petitioners. If really any khaedari holders had any
interest over the subject land, they could have challenged the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (13 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
conversions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which was
granted in the year 2007-2008. The silence of such khatedari
holders indicates that they, in fact, have no grievance, and the
interests of the petitioners were segregated long ago. These
complaints appear to be motivated by an attempt to settle scores
or to influence the process improperly.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the audit
report and enquiry report, which form the foundation for initiating
the entire action against the petitioners, were not furnished to the
petitioners, and therefore, any findings therein cannot be used to
justify the initiation of the action and they cannot be basis for any
findings. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are not
sustainable.
22. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the Udaipur
Development Authority, the State, as well as the intervenor,
submitted that the Local Fund Auditors conducted the audit for the
financial years 2022-2024. They found numerous financial
irregularities that caused losses amounting to crores to the
Udaipur Development Authority. Based on these financial
irregularities, the State Government directed the Udaipur
Development Authority to take disciplinary action as well as
initiate proceedings for the cancellation of such regularization,
issuance of allotments, and execution of lease deeds. Such actions
cannot be said to be assailable.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
the intervenors submitted that the sub-division and reconstitution
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (14 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
of plots must be in accordance with the provisions contained in the
Rules of 1975. Rule 12 of the said Rules requires that when a
larger plot exceeding 3000 Sq. Yds. is to be made or
reconstituted, it can be done only with the prior approval of the
State Government. In the present case, there was no approval for
the sub-division and reconstitution of the single plot. As such, on
this ground alone, the impugned orders require no interference.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
the intervenors further contended that the Township Policy, 2010
requires that the ratio of saleable area to facility area must be
60:40. However, the petitioners, by way of the revised
demarcation plan, allowed the saleable area to exceed more than
80%. Allowing such a high saleable area is contrary to the Rules
and Regulations governing the approval of layouts.
25. The learned counsels for respondents also submitted that
the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan scheme, introduced in
2015, requires provision of 5% of the layout area for EWS/LIG,
which was not made in the approved layout. Thus, the grounds for
cancelling the approved layout are justifiable in the context of the
violation of these requirements.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
the intervenors also submitted that the revenue records show that
the petitioners are not the exclusive owners of the khasara
numbers in question, and that there are multiple owners. When
land is owned and possessed by multiple owners, partition of the
owners’ interests is required to be produced before the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (15 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
authorities. In the present case, without any such partition among
the co-owners, the approval of the layout was obtained. The
complaints regarding khatedari rights were part of the decision-
making process, and the said khatedars were not allotted any land
or lease deeds. Thus, on this ground as well, the authorities
rightly set aside the approved demarcated plan.
27. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
perused the material available on record. In the backdrop of the
above contentions, this Court requires to decide whether the order
impugned requires any interference.
28. The undisputed facts on record show that the petitioners
are owners of khatedari lands of the khasara numbers in issue.
They obtained conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use
in terms of Section 90 of the RLR Act, 1956. Such conversion was
obtained in the year 2007. The layouts were also approved for
group housing development in the year 2007. The Government
also accorded permission for the allotment of government land in
2010.
29. The controversy in these writ petitions is confined to the
approval of the plan and the issuance of allotments and execution
of lease deeds in favour of persons having an interest in the land
upon regularization change of land use under Section 90A of the
RLR Act, 1956. The impugned proceedings were initiated on the
basis of powers vested in the authorities under Section 52 of the
Udaipur Development Act, 2023. The relevant provisions reads as
follows:-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (16 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
“52. Revocation of allotment and cancellation
of lease deed.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Act or any other law for
the time being in force, if, at any time, before or
after the lease deed, executed and registered, in
respect of land disposed of under this Chapter either
on lease hold basis or on free hold basis, the
Authority has reasons to believe that allotment of
land has been obtained, and lease deed has been
executed, by way of misrepresentation of facts or on
the basis of false documents or with collusion or in
contravention of law, it shall issue in the manner
hereinafter provided a notice in writing to show
cause why an order of revocation of allotment and
cancellation of the lease deed of the land should not
be made.
(2) The notice shall-
(a) specify the grounds on which an order of
revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease
deed of the land is proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all
persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim
interest in, the land, to show cause, if any, against
the proposed order on or before such date as is
specified in the notice being a date not earlier than
seven days from the date of issue thereof.
(3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by
any person in pursuance of a notice under sub-
section (1) and any evidence he may produce in
support of the same and after giving him, a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Authority
is satisfied that the lease is obtained by
misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false
documents or with collusion or in contravention of
law, the Authority may, make an order of revocation
of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the
land and also make an order of eviction, for reasons
to be recorded therein, directing that the land shall
be vacated by all persons who are or may be in
occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a
copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or
some other conspicuous part of the land.”
29.1 A reading of the above provision makes it clear that,
before or after lease deeds are executed and registered in respect
of land disposed of under Chapter VIII of the Act of 2023, either
on a leasehold or freehold basis, if the authorities have reasons to
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (17 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
believe that the allotment of land and execution of lease deeds
were made as result of misrepresentation of facts, forged
documents, collusion, or in contravention of law, the development
authority can take action for cancellation of allotment and
execution of lease deeds. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act
of 2023 further clarifies that if the authorities have such reasons
as indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 52, a notice shall be
issued, and such notice is required to mention the grounds on
which the order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the
lease deed of the land is proposed to be made.
29.2 In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the
Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, which reads hereunder:-
“23. Power to make or issue to include power to
add, to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc.-Where,
by any Rajasthan law, a power to make or issue
orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws
or notifications is conferred, then that power
includes a power exercisable in the like manner and
subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any),
to add, to amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules,
regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or
notifications so made or issued.”
From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that in
any Rajasthan Law, a power to issue or make any notification,
order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or by-laws is conferred, such
a power also include power to add, amend, vary or rescind any
orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, by-laws or notifications
so made or issued.
30. It is also relevant to refer to Section 90A(8) of the RLR
Act, 1956 and Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
(Amendment) Bill, 2022, which reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (18 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
“[90-A.] Use of agricultural land for non-
agricultural purpose –
8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act. 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) where before 17th
June, 1999 any person. holding any land for
agricultural purposes in an urban area or within
the urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an
urban area, has used or has allowed to be used
such land or part thereof for non-agricultural
purposes or, has parted with possession of such
land or part thereof for consideration by way of
sale or agreement to sell and/ or by executing
power of attorney and/or Will or in any other
manner for purported manner for purported non-
agricultural use, the rights and interest of such
person in the said land or holding or part thereof,
as the case may be. shall be liable to be
terminated and the officer authorized by the
State Government in this behalf, shall, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to such
person and recording reasons in writing for doing
so, order for termination of his rights and interest
in such land and thereupon the land shall vest in
the State Government free from all
encumbrances and be deemed to have been
placed at the disposal of the local authority under
section 102-A and shall be available for allotment
or regularization by the local authority for a Patta
given, by a Housing Cooperative Society or on
the basis of any document of sale or agreement
to sell or power of attorney or a Will or any other
document purporting transfer of land to them
either by the person whose rights and interests
have been ordered to be terminated under this
sub-section or by any other person claiming
through such person, subject to the payment to
the local authority of urban assessment or
premium of both leviable and recoverable under
subsection (4):”
XXX XXX XXX
“2. Amendment of section 90-A, Rajasthan
Act No.15 of 1956.- In sub-section (8) of
Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 (Act No.15 of 1956):-
(i) for the existing expression “where before
th
17 June, 1999”, the expression “where before
31st December, 2921″ shall be substituted.”
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (19 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
30.1 From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that
any person holding agricultural land in the urban area or within
the urban limits or peripheral belt of the urban area, who uses or
is allowed to use a part of such land for non-agricultural purposes,
or who has parted with possession of such land or part thereof for
consideration by way of sale, agreement to sell, power of attorney,
will, or by any other manner for a purported non-agricultural use,
is liable to have their rights and interests terminated. The
authorized officer is required to hear such a person having rights
and interests and pass orders for the termination of those rights
and interests. Upon such termination, the land vests with the local
authority under Section 102, and such land is available for
allotment or regularization by the Local Authority to the persons
whose rights and interests are ordered to be terminated or to any
other person claiming through them. However, such procedure is
not applicable to certain described lands, the further elaboration of
which is not required here.
31. The impugned orders in the present writ petitions do not
reflect any reference to the show-cause notices before proposing
to cancel the layout plans. However, the respondents allegedly
issued a show-cause notice dated 27.05.2025, directing the
petitioners to submit a revised plan for approval just two days
before the Layout Approval Committee was scheduled to meet on
29.05.2025, the date on which the layout plan was ultimately
cancelled. The invocation of powers under Section 52 of the Act of
2023 is limited to specific grounds. Before initiating cancellation
proceedings, the notices must clearly indicate the grounds on
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (20 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
which the proposed cancellation are intended and the relevant
material relied upon by the respondent authority must also be
furnished to the parties to whom the notices were issued in order
to enable them to make a proper response to the proposed action,
which is having serious consequences. The respondents did not
issue any show-cause notice specifically regarding the proposed
cancellation of the layout patta. Instead, they issued notices
concerning the cancellation of allotments and lease deeds, citing
them as a consequence of the Layout Approval Committee’s
decision to cancel the layout. These show-cause notices lack
independent reasoning or grounds; they merely state that the
action is a consequence of the Committee’s earlier decision. The
notices dated 27.05.2025 were issued just two days before the
cancellation of the layout plan asking the petitioners to bring
revised lay out. No specific show-cause notice was issued
regarding the proposed action of cancelation of approved layout
plan. This sequence of events reflects a pre-determined mindset
on the part of the Layout Approval Committee to cancel the
previously approved layout and directed the petitioners to submit
an amended plan. Furthermore, the notices were issued only two
days prior to the cancellation and did not provide the petitioners
with sufficient time to respond. According to the petitioners, the
said notices were received by them only on the date the approved
layout plans were cancelled. The respondents failed to produce
any evidence on record to show that such notices were issued
much earlier giving sufficient time to the petitioners to respondent
such notices.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (21 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
32. The notices issued under Section 52(2) of the Act of 2023
were not in compliance of the requirement of sub-section (2) of
Section 52 of the Act of 2023. No-compliance of such a procedure
would vitiate the entire proceedings under Section 52 of the Act of
2023.
33. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
relied upon the provision of Section 23 of the Rajasthan General
Clauses Act as a counter-blast to the argument of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 52 of the Act of
2023 do not comprehend the cancellation of layout plan but it only
apply to allotment and execution of lease-deed. The learned
counsel for the respondents while placing reliance upon the
Rajasthan General Clauses Act, has relied upon the decision of
Karnataka High Court in the case of K.A. Prabhakar Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority, reported in (1999)2 KarLJ
555, wherein the High Court of Karnataka had an occasion to
consider Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899,
which is similar to Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses
Act. The Court held that the Authority possesses the power to
modify or permit modification of the scheme or layout, even
without any specific provision granting such power, by relying on
its general power to frame the scheme or layout, which includes
the authority to modify, amend, or rescind such scheme or lay
out. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash
Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in
(2008)4 SCC 584.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (22 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
34. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents are relating to the similar question
arose before the High Court of Karnataka. The judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are not
in the same set of facts, as such, it is not relevant for the present
issue. This Court is of the view that the authorities have power to
amend or rescind the layout or scheme by invoking the section 23
of Rajasthan General Clauses Act read with Section 52 of the Act
of 2023.
35. The impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on the
ground that the entire process of cancellation was based solely on
the audit report and internal enquiry report. These audit and
internal reports were not made available to the petitioners. Non-
furnishing of such foundational documents results in a violation of
the principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the requirement of
fair play, which is enshrined under Section 52(2) of the Act of
2023.
36. The impugned orders can also be examined in the context
of their merits and sustainability. The claim of the respondents
was that by virtue of the approved demarcated layout plan, the
existing single plot approval for group housing was divided, and
such division can only be done in accordance with the Rules of
1975. The single plot was more than 3000 Sq. yards, and if it
exceeds 3000 Sq. Yds., the sub-division can only be granted with
the approval of the State Government.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (23 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
37. To examine such contentions, it is apt to refer to Rule
12 of the Rules of 1975, which reads hereunder:-
“12. Sub-division or re-constitution of Plots.-
(1) No plot which is residential or intended to be
used for residential purpose, shall be less than 35
Sq. Yds, or bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the
schemes of sub division. reconstitution or
improvement of plots :
Provided that the Trust may with the previous
sanction of the State Government, grant
permission for reconstitution or sub-division of plot
Digger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of
reconstitution or sub-division as the case may be,
of plots on the condition that the set back of the
reconstituted plots shall be as per the scheme of
prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size
of the reconstituted plots, whichever is great and
in case of sub-division of plots set back of original
plot shall maintained. The maximum coverage and
height of such reconstitute plots shall be as per
prevailing building bye-laws.
(2) Due regard shall always be given to the
existing character of development envisaged on
the street or scheme in which a sub-division of
plot is sought and other set back lines shall remain
unaltered.
(3) No plot which is commercial or intended to be
used for commercial purpose, shall be less than 10
Sq. Yds, or bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the
schemes of sub-division, reconstitution or
improvement of plots:
Provided that the Trust may with the previous
sanction of the State Government, grant
permission for reconstitution or sub-division of
plots bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of
reconstitution or sub-division, as the case may be,
of plots on the condition that the set back of the
reconstituted plots shall be as per the scheme of
prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size
of the reconstituted plots, whichever is greater
and in case of 3ub-division of plots set back of
original plot shall be maintained. The maximum
coverage and height of such reconstituted plots
shall be as per prevailing building bye-laws.”
37.1 A reading of Rule 12 it makes clear that no residential plot
shall be less than the minimum prescribed area and shall not
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (24 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]exceed the maximum prescribed area. In the original provision,
the minimum size of a plot intended for residential purposes was
35 Sq. yards, and the maximum size of a plot was 1500 Sq. Yds.
If the developer wants to develop a bigger plot exceeding the
prescribed maximum area, approval from State is required in the
scheme of sub-division, reconstitution, and improvements. In the
present case, the single plot size may be more than 3000 Sq. Yds.
However, approval of the State Government is required only if the
residential single plot size exceeds the maximum size prescribed
under the Rule. For sub-division and reconstitution of the existing
plot, if it meets the criteria of being between the minimum and
maximum sizes, approval of the State Government is not required.
38. Now, comes to the submission of learned counsel
appearing for the respondents and intervenors that since the
single plot is more than 3000 Sq. Yds., the requirement of prior
approval of the State Government in the scheme has no merit and
is rejected. The approval of the revised plan was given in
consequence of the policy adapted by the State Government, as is
clear from the order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure-18 in both the
writ petitions). The sub-division and reconstitution were done by
altering the requirements to be maintained when the approval of a
single plot for group housing was obtained. As such, there is no
violation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975.
39. With regard to the submission concerning the saleable
area, the respondents claim that the ratio of 60:40 should have
been maintained. The petitioners contend that the 60:40 ratio is
mandatory only in cases of plot development for independent
residential units. Such a requirement is not applicable to cases
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (25 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
covered by group housing/flats schemes, where the saleable area
is even permitted up to 100%. This is clear from Clause 11 of the
Circular dated 25.02.2009, which reads hereunder:-
“11. The procedure for promoting private investment
in the development of private township projects shall
be conducted strictly in accordance with the Order
No.P.10(1) Navidhi/2002 dated 1.1.2002. For layout
plan approval (excluding group housing and plotted
development), it is essential that 60% of the total
area of the scheme be allocated for residential use
and 40% for amenities and facilities.”
39.1 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have
strongly placed reliance on Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975, which
reads hereunder:-
“11. Saleable area.- The saleable area in any
scheme of sub-division, reconstitution or
improvement of plots shall not exceed 66% of the
total area, however in the schemes of development
upto 2 Hectares it may be more subject to provisions
of the prevailing Township Policy.”
40. Admittedly, the present sub-division and reconstitution
were within group housing scheme and not a development of
independent residential units. The substance of the Circular dated
25.02.2009 dilutes the requirement contemplated under Rule 11
of the Rules of 1975 by excluding the applicability of such a ratio
to the group housing. In the present cases, the existing group
housing scheme was not altered completely and the larger plotted
area of group housing were made into smaller area of group
housing. Ultimately, the scheme of group housing was still
maintained.
41. The Township Policy of 2010, more particularly Clause (2)
of the Police reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (26 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
“(2) This Policy shall be applicable to the cases
which are applied after the date of issue of this
Policy as well as the pending cases. However,
pending cases in which notice under Section 90-B of
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been issued
before the issue of this Policy would be considered
under the provisions of Township Policy, 2002 unless
the developer exercises the option of being
considered under Policy for Residential, Group
Housing and Other schemes in the Private Sector,
2010.”
41.1 A reading of the above Clause clearly shows that where
the proceedings under Section 90-B of the RLR Act, 1956 were
commenced before the issuance of Township Policy, 2010, the
provisions of Township Policy, 2002 are applicable unless
developer exercised option of being considered under the Policy of
2010. There is no evidence on record that the builder has opted
2010-Policy by exercising its right of option as prescribed under
Town Policy, 2010. In all the present cases, the notices under
Section 90-B of RLR Act, 1956 were issued prior to the Township
Policy, 2010 i.e. 2007-2008. By virtue of the above provision, the
Township Policy of 2010 is not applicable to the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
42. The other ground, which can be said to be a contravention
of provisions of law as contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents, was made one of the grounds in the impugned order
is that 5% of the plotted area shall be reserved for EWS/LIG under
the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2015. No doubt, the
initial requirement was to leave 5% area in schemes developed
after 2015. This condition has been watered down by relaxing the
requirement in lieu of payment of determined fees, and these
payments were further diluted by completely dispensing with the
requirement of payment of fees in lieu of relaxation of the 5%
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (27 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
area. Thus, when the regularization application was made, there
was no requirement to maintain 5% area for the EWS/LIG, nor
was there any requirement to pay any fee in view of not
maintaining the said requirement. Thus, these grounds are also
not sustainable.
43. On perusal of the impugned orders, nowhere it is reflected
what facts constituted misrepresentation, nor are there any details
regarding collusion or how such collusion was established. The
alleged contraventions of various provisions are contrary to the
new Township Policy and recent Circulars. The violations were
claimed based on inapplicable provisions, ignoring the changes in
Township Policies issued by the Government of Rajasthan from
time to time. The entire demarcation of group housings was
carried out in accordance with the Policy of 2021-2023. The
petitioners have applied for a modified layout by utilizing the
schemes issued by the State Government. The entire exercise by
the respondent authorities amounts to a misinterpretation and
misapplication of the existing provisions of the Township Policy.
Therefore, the entire exercise of the respondents in canceling the
layout plans as well the allotment and lease-deeds are
unsustainable in the eye of law and they are liable to be set aside.
44. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.05.2025 cancelling the layout plans and placing
allotments, and lease deeds under abeyance are set aside.
Consequently, the orders passed prior to impugned cancellation
orders prohibiting constructions and transfers and registrations
over subject lands shall inoperative and shall not be adhered to.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (28 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
45. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
46. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link