[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gram Panchayat vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:35560]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9175/2025
Gram Panchayat, Asota, Panchayat Samiti, Ladnu Through Its
Administrator Hardyal Rulania S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, Aged 40
About Years, Resident Of Bhiyani, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue (Group-9) Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department,
Jaipur.
3. Additional Chief Town Planner (West), Town Planning
Department, Jaipur.
4. The Senior Town Planner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner.
5. The Municipal Council, Sujangarh District Churu Through
Its Commissioner.
6. The District Collector, Deedwana- Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
Mr. Himanshu Ranjan Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Monal Chug on behalf of
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
14/08/2025
1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Gram Panchayat has
prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed
and:-
A] By an appropriate writ order or Direction, the
letter/communication dated 06.02.20025 (Annex.8)
passed by the issued by the Commissioner, Municipal(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (2 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]Council, Sujangarh District Churu may kindly be
declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed
and set aside.
B] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
notification dated 24.11.2021 as well as
25.06.2021 (Annex.13) issued by the
respondents by which inclusion of above
villages in the Master Plan sujangarh may
kindly be declared illegal and the same also
kindly be quashed and set aside.
C] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be restrained from
including new revenue villages namely
Khanpura. Asota, Bhiyani in the periphery of
Master Plan of Municipal Council, Sujangarh
District Churu and any action taken or order
passed for including the aforesaid revenue
villages in the Master Plan of Municipal Council,
Sujangarh may also kindly be declared illegal
and quashed and set aside.
D] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondent Municipal Council, Sujangarh District
Churu may further kindly be restrained from
interfering in the administrative functions of the
petitioner Gram Panchayat Asota.
Any other appropriate order or relief which this
Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case may kindly also be
passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a Gram Panchayat situated at District Nagaur.
They submitted that vide notification dated 25.06.2021, the
Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department, Rajasthan
invited objections for inclusion of Gram Panchayat, Asota in
the Master Plan of Municipal Council, Sujangarh, District
Churu as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Rajasthan
Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act of 1959’) and Section 3 of the Rajasthan Urban
Improvement Trust (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (3 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
referred to as ‘the Rules of 1962’). The Gram Panchayat,
Asota (petitioner herein) submitted its objections against the
aforesaid inclusion on 09.07.2021, 23.07.2021 (Annexure 3)
and 18.11.2021 (Annexure 05) respectively. However, the
State Government while ignoring the objections submitted by
the Gram Panchayat, Asota, included the village Asota in
‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ vide notification dated
24.11.2021 (Annexure 13). The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the notifications dated 24.11.2021
and 25.06.2021 by which certain villages including the village
Asota were included in ‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ are
highly unjust, arbitrary and illegal. They further submitted
that the aforesaid notifications are detrimental to the
autonomy of the Gram Panchayat as they infringe the right of
the petitioner – Gram Panchayat to grant permission of land
conversion in certain cases.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
despite the fact that as per the communication dated
08.03.2022 received by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Asota from the office of the Chief Town Planner, Town
Planning Department, Rajasthan, the revenue village has not
been included/merged in the Municipal Council Sujangarh,
vide letter/communication dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure 08)
the Commissioner Municipal Council Sujangarh has asked the
Tehsildar, Ladnu to not to undertake any proceedings for
land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural
purposes and issuance of pattas in that regard. The
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (4 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
letter/communication dated 06.02.2025 also mentions that
the Gram Panchayat can only issue patta to its residents in
exercise of the powers available to it under the Panchayati
Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of
1996). Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that
this act and action of the respondents clearly indicate that an
attempt has been made to deprive the Gram Panchayat,
Asota not only from effective governance but also from
catering the needs of the people/residents of Gram
Panchayat, Asota.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the act and actions of the State Government
in the present case are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary
to the powers and jurisdiction available to the Gram
Panchayat under the Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act of 1994’) and the Rules of 1996 framed
thereunder. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that on the one hand, vide letter/
communication dated 08.03.2022, the Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat, Asota has been given assurance that even after
inclusion of the village Asota in the ‘Master Plan of
Sujangarh 2036’, the Gram Panchayat shall continue to
enjoy all the administrative works and powers for the
betterment of its people but on the other hand, by issuance
of the communication/letter dated 06.02.2025, the Gram
Panchayat has virtually been stripped off of all its powers
including but not limited to conversion proceedings and
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (5 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
issuance of patta of land from agricultural to non-agricultural
purposes.
5. On these grounds, the learned counsel implored the
Court to quash and set aside the impugned notifications and
communications.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents submitted that initially, on behalf of the
Governor of Rajasthan as per the provisions of Section 3(1)
of the Act of 1959, vide notification dated 10.01.2017, the
Additional Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department was
appointed to conduct a survey of the Revenue villages
proposed to be included within the Urban Area of Sujangarh
and to prepare a Master Plan extending upto the Year 2036.
7. In continuation of the notification dated 10.01.2017,
another notification dated 26.06.2019 was issued on behalf of
the Governor of Rajasthan whereby two additional villages
namely Asota and Bhiyani of Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur
were proposed to be included in the Urban Area of Sujangarh.
The Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department,
Rajasthan thereupon vide notification dated 25.06.2021 in
accordance with the Section 5(1) of the Act of 1959 read with
Rule 3 of the Rules of 1962 invited objection/suggestions
before finalizing the Master Plan to ensure fairness and
transparency in the procedure.
8. The objections submitted by the petitioner – Gram
Panchayat through its Sarpanch were duly considered and the
rational for inclusion of the village Asota in ‘Sujangarh
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (6 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
Master Plan 2036′ was duly clarified in the communication
dated 08.03.2022 (Annx.-06) by the Chief Town Planner,
Rajashtan.
9. Learned counsel submitted that since none of the legal
or vested rights of the Gram Panchayat have been affected
and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness
with regard to issuance of impugned notifications, the instant
writ petition deserves to be dismissed straightaway.
10. Drawing attention of the Court towards the writ
petitioner filed by the petitioner, learned counsel submitted
that neither a copy of the notification 24.09.2021 through
which ‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ was notified in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 1959 read with Rule 4
of the Rules of 1962 has been placed on record nor a specific
challenge to the notification dated 24.09.2021 has been
made in the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that in
absence of a specific challenge to the notification dated
24.09.2021, through which village Asota has been included in
the ‘Urban Area’ of Sujangarh, no relief as prayed for can be
granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted
that inclusion of a village or revenue area within Master Plan
of an urban area by way of notification issued under Section 3
of the Act of 1959 by the Chief Town Planner, Town Planning
Department constitutes a legislative function of the State
Government and such legislative/statutory notification are
immune from Judicial Review by this Court.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (7 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
11. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
respondents implored the Court to dismiss the instant writ
petition with exemplary costs.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused
the material available on record.
13. The term Master Plan has been defined in Section 2(1)
(vii) of the Act of 1959 which reads as under:
“(vii) “Master Plan” means the Master Plan prepared and
approved for any urban area in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter II;”
14. Similarly, the definition of the term Urban Area has been
provided in Section 2(1)(x) which reads as under:
“(x) “urban area” means the urban area notified under
section 3 or, as the case may be, under section 8;”
15. Section 3 of the Act of 1959 is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:
“3. Power of State Government to order preparation of
Master Plan.
– [(1) The State Government may, by order, direct that
in respect of and for any urban area in the State
specified in the order, a civil survey shall be carried out
and a Master Plan shall be prepared, by such officer or
authority as the State Government may appoint for the
purpose] [Substituted by Rajasthan Act 3 of 1963,
dated 29-3-1963.],
(2) For the purpose of advising the officer or authority
appointed under sub-section (1) on the preparation of
the Master Plan, the State Government may constitute
an advisory council consisting of a Chairman and such
number of other members as the State Government
may deem fit.”
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (8 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
16. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court finds that
though the petitioner has filed the present writ petition being
aggrieved by the inclusion of the village Asota in the
‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ but the notification
24.09.2021 issued in that regard has not been challenged
before this Court.
17. As a matter of fact, a copy of the notification dated
24.09.2021 is not even available on the record of the case.
Neither any explanation for the aforesaid omission nor
argument with regard to the notification dated 24.09.2021
being not accessible has been furnished/raised. Thus, this
Court is not aware of the exact terms or the language of the
notification dated 24.09.2021 issued by the Chief Town
Planner, Town Planning Department.
18. It is pertinent to note here that while making challenge
to the notification dated 25.06.2021 inviting objections
against the proposed inclusion of village Asota in the
‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ and notification dated
24.11.2021 though which the State Government approved
the said Master Plan, no argument with regard to competence
of the authority issuing the same has been raised in either
the writ petition or during the course of arguments. No
material has been brought on record to indicate that the
impugned notifications are either beyond the Parent Act or
infringe legal or vested right of the petitioner – Gram
Panchayat.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (9 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
19. It is also relevant to note here that prior to preparing
the ‘Master Plan’, the objections raised by the petitioner –
Gram Panchayat against the inclusion of village Asota in
‘Sujangarh Master Plan 2036’ were considered. In other
words, there was an effective consultation at the end of State
Government before taking a policy decision for inclusion of
the Area of Gram Panchayat of village Asota in the Master
Plan. Needless to observe that in these matters, consultation
with the respective Gram Panchayat is sufficient enough and
the consent of the Panchayat is not sine-qua-non for taking
the policy decisions.
20. After perusal of the impugned notifications and
communication issued by the State Government as made
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion
that once an area has been declared ‘Urban Area’ within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(x) of the Act of 1959, the
respondents are well within their rights to vest grant of
permission for land use change from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes, in areas falling under the Master Plan
with the Municipal Council/UIT/Development Authority as the
case may be, for development, improvement and expansion
of such area and considering the development of outgrowth
area on the peripheral boundary of the territory (Gram
Panchayat – Asota in the present case). The Municipal
Council/UIT/Development Authority are definitely having the
experience and expertise to make plans for future
developments and expansion of the Urban Area. Resultantly,
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35560] (10 of 10) [CW-9175/2025]
the residents of Urban Area would get better facilities and
would have better a quality of life.
21. Thus, the impugned communication dated 06.02.2025 is
not at all in contravention of the letter/communication dated
08.03.2022 and circular dated 18.03.2025 which stipulates
that as a result of inclusion of revenue villages (village Asota
in the present case) in the ‘Master Plan of Sujangarh
2036’, the technical work for planning and development in
relation to Urban areas will be done by the Municipal Council
in conformity with the Act of 1959 and all the proceedings
relating to the land conversion as per Section 90A of the Land
Revenue Act, 1956 shall be undertaken by the Municipal
Council/UIT/Development Authority as the case may be.
22. In view of aforesaid discussion so also keeping in view
the fact that no specific challenge to the notification dated
24.09.2021 in relation to ‘Master Plan of Sujangarh 2036’
has been laid before this Court, this Court finds no merit in
this Writ Petition.
23. Consequently, the present writ petition as well as stay
petition are dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
01-TarunGoyal/-
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link