[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
M/S Surya Buildsquare Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:29869]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7949/2025
M/s Surya Buildsquare Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Address at
19-C, Old Fathpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan. through its Authorized
Representative Jugal Kishore Agarwal S/o Shri Rampal Agarwal,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident of 14-B, Agrasen Nagar, 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
Commissioner.
3. Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6790/2025
Nirmal Kumar Jain S/o Shobhag Mal Jain, Aged about 59 Years,
Resident of Kundanam, Maheshwari Colony, Madanganj,
Kishangarh, Ajmer, 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
Commissioner.
3. Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamps, District
Udaipur.
5. Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur.
6. Sub-Registrar-II, Udaipur.
7. Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.
8. Tehsildar, Badgaon, District Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (2 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
9. Tehsildar, Kurabad, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6815/2025
1. Sunita Malara W/o Lalit Malara, Aged about 53 Years,
Resdient of 29 Bahubali Colony Bohra Ganesh Ji Road
Udaipur Rajasthan
2. Lalit Malara S/o Kanhaiya Lal Malara, Aged about 58 Years,
Resdient of 29 Bahubali Colony Bohra Ganesh Ji Road
Udaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary Urban
Devleopment and Housing Department Government of
Rajasthan Jaipur
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Commissioner
3. Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
4. Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamp District
Udaipur
5. Sub Registrar 1, Udaipur
6. Sub Registrar II, Udaipur
7. Tehsildar, Girwa District Udaipur
8. Tehsildar, Badgaon District Udaipur
9. Tehsildar, Kurabad District Udaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7948/2025
1. Kapil Agarwal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Aged about 41
Years, Resident of 19-C, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ankit Agarwal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Aged about 40
Years, Resident of 19-C, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (3 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, through its
Commissioner.
3. Secretary, 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.
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
Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025
1. This order disposes of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.
7949/2025, 6790/2025, 6815/2025, and 7948/2025.
2. The challenge in all the writ petitions pertains to the
orders dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Layout Plan Committee of
the Udaipur Development Authority, whereby the layout
permissions granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 2023
were cancelled. In some of the writ petitions, further notices were
also issued pursuant to the cancellation of the layout plans,
proposing the cancellation of allotments and lease deeds. 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
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (4 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
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 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.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 7949/2025 are referred to hereinafter for the disposal
of all the aforementioned writ petitions. The facts in the other writ
petitions are largely similar, with only minor variations that are
inconsequential.
4. The facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7949/2025
disclose that the petitioners are purchasers of khatedari lands.
Subsequent to the purchases, they prepared layout plans and
carried out development by using the land for non-agricultural
purposes, creating plots of various sizes. This development was
undertaken without following the prescribed procedure for
conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural use. There was
no approval of layout plans, no allotments, and no execution of
lease deeds in terms of procedure laid down under the Udaipur
Development Authority Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (5 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
Act of 2023″) as well as the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Permission
for Use of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes and
Allotment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of
2012”).
5. Subsequently, the purchasers of khatedari lands
submitted applications for the regularization of their unauthorized
change of land use, and for the consequential approval of the
layout plan, issuance of allotment letters, and execution of lease
deeds. Pursuant to these applications, orders were passed by the
competent authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the RLR Act,
1956”) read with the Rules of 2012.The competent authority, after
following the prescribed procedure for regularization of land use
and duly obtaining reports from the Patwari as well as the
Tehsildar, passed orders regularizing the land use.
6. The land covered under regularization vested with the
local authority, i.e., the Udaipur Development Authority as a
consequence of passing orders under section 90B of Act,1956. The
layout plans were submitted by the petitioners in compliance of
statutory requirements and those plans were approved by the
Layout Plan Committee established by the Udaipur Development
Authority, and thereafter, allotments and lease deeds were also
executed in favour of the petitioners or their successors-in-
interest. Subsequently, it appears the Local Fund Authority has
conducted an audit for the relevant years 2022-2024. The audit
raised certain issues regarding financial irregularities in granting
layout permissions, allotments, and issuance of lease deeds in
respect of the plots covered under the approved layout. The Local
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (6 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
Fund Authority observed significant financial loss to the Udaipur
Development Authority on account of procedural violations.
7. 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 then Secretary 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.
8. The Layout Plan Committee, by its decision dated
27.03.2025, cancelled the layout plan that had earlier been
approved in the year 2023. Subsequently, in some of the writ
petitions covered under the present order, notices were also
issued proposing the cancellation of allotments as well as lease
deeds executed in favour of the petitioners or their successors-in-
interest.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (7 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
9. The cancellation of the layout plan was primarily based on
the ground of non-compliance with preconditions for regularization
proceedings–specifically, that a minimum of 10% of the
construction should have already existed, and that only 70% of
the area could be permitted as saleable. According to the
respondent-Udaipur Development Authority, satellite imagery
from Google Earth Maps dated January 2020 showed that the
constructed areas were only between 7% to 7.5%. In such cases,
approval from the State Government was mandatory but had not
been obtained.
10. The second ground cited was that, as per the prevailing
policy, the ratio of saleable area vis-à-vis facility area must be
60:40, whereas the ratio in the approved plan was 70:30. The
third ground was the absence of any provision in the layout for
EWS/LIG (Economically Weaker Sections/Low Income Group)
plots, which are required to be included in accordance with the
Prashaasan Shaharon Ke Sang Abhiyan. Additional grounds
included complaints made by other khatedars regarding the
regularization of land use and approval of plans leading to
allotments and execution of lease deeds. It was also alleged that
the regularization fee had not been properly collected in
accordance with the Department’s order dated 30.11.2017,
resulting in a significant revenue loss to the Udaipur Development
Authority. Challenging the above cancellation and other
consequential proceedings, the present writ petitions have been
filed.
11. There are other prayers in the present writ petitions and
they relate to the challenge against various interim orders passed
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (8 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
by the Udaipur Development Authority and they have lost their
significance due to the passing of final order cancelling the layout
as the interim orders merged with final orders. Thus, the
adjudication on the validity of such interim orders is now
unwarranted.
12. The case of the respondents is that the present writ
petitions are not maintainable, as the petitioners have no right to
assail the cancellation proceedings, given that the cancellations
were in respect of layout plans which were approved suo motu.
They also pleaded that the approval of the plans and issuance of
allotments and lease deeds were the result of misrepresentation of
facts, collusion, and were in contravention of law. It was further
pleaded that there are numerous complaints from Khatedars
regarding the regularization process, approval of the layout plans,
and issuance of pattas/lease deeds.
13. 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. The petitioners have no right to
participate in it. According to the respondents, they are entitled to
cancel the layout without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as
the impugned orders only cancel the suo motu approvals.
14. The respondents also justified the invocation of powers
under Section 52 of the Act of 2023, which enables them to cancel
layout plan, allotments and lease deeds if they were obtained
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (9 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
through misrepresentation of facts or collusion, or if such
approvals were granted in contravention of law. The impugned
orders, according to the respondents, were passed with due
application of mind in light of the prevailing circumstances, and
the writ petitions are therefore misconceived; and prayed for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels on record
for both the petitioners and the respondents.
16. The only issue before this Court in the present writ
petitions is whether the impugned orders dated 27.03.2025,
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.
17. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of the layout
plan is 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 notices were issued. Thus, ex facie,
the orders are unsustainable in the eye of law.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
also submitted that the grounds on which the impugned orders of
cancellation were made are unsustainable in light of various
statutory provisions and the orders passed by the State
Government from time to time. He further submitted that the
respondent-authorities have misunderstood the requirement of
10% construction by treating it as the actual constructed area,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (10 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
contrary to various orders wherein the authorities have interpreted
that when a single unit of construction with compound wall exists
on an allotted plot, the entire area of that plot shall be taken into
account in computing the construction area, rather than the actual
built-up area on the plot. The learned Senior Counsel submitted
that if such an interpretation is adapted, the area of construction
would exceed the minimum requirement of 10% construction
area, which is necessary for regularization of land use and the
consequential approval of the layout plan, issuance of allotment,
and lease deeds.
19. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the
approved plan clearly indicates that the ratio of 70:30 for saleable
area and facility area is duly maintained in the approved layout,
and that they are not required to maintain a 60:40 ratio in light of
the amended provision introduced in Rule 14(4) of the Rules of
2012. Under this provision, colonies developed prior to
31.12.2021 are required to maintain a 70:30 ratio. The
requirement to maintain a 60:40 ratio was part of the Policy of
2010, which remained in force until the amendment was made in
2012 to sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2012.
20. 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
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (11 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
neither require reserving 5% of the saleable area for EWS/LIG nor
the payment of charges, in view of the relaxation of this condition.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
khatedari holders have no rights over subject land and they have
no right to complain even if they have right as they allowed the
land to be used for non-agricultural purposes and raised no
grievances while the land was being developed into plots.
Moreover, during the regularization process, a public notice was
also issued inviting objections to the proposed regularization of
uses, and no objections were received against such action. They
are proxies of business rivalry. As such, the alleged khatedari
holders have no right to interfere in the regularization process.
22. 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. On this ground also, the
impugned orders are not sustainable.
23. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the requirement of payment of the
regularization fee was complied with in terms of the applicable
policy, and there is no shortfall in the payment of the
regularization fee. The authorities have exaggerated and inflated
the alleged loss so as to cause prejudice by showing huge
amounts of loss on account of regularization, which, in fact, was
done in accordance with the existing policy and statutory
provisions after collecting all the required amounts payable as per
the provisions of the Act, the rules, and other policies. Thus, the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (12 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the grounds of
violation of principle of natural justice as well as on merits;
consequently, further proceedings pursuant thereto are also
unsustainable in the eye of law and are required to be set aside.
24. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the Udaipur
Development Authority, the State, as well as the intervenors,
submitted that the Local Fund Auditors conducted the audit for the
financial years 2022-2024 and they thoroughly verified various
actions of Secretary of UDA during the during regularization
period. 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.
25. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents and
intervenors also contended that the requirement of issuing a
notice arises only in cases where the regularization proceedings
were not suo motu proceedings. The proceedings that were
cancelled were initiated suo motu, and the petitioners cannot be
said to be affected parties. Thus, they cannot claim any right to
receive notice before the passing of the order dated 27.03.2025.
26. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents and
intervenors further contended that the statutory provisions and
rules require at least 10% of layouted area must have
constructions and availability of 70% saleable area for
regularization of land use, approval of the layout, and
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (13 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
consequential issuance of allotments and lease deeds. The layout
area in question was not developed in accordance with the
procedure contemplated under the Acts and the Rules. He relied
upon the Google Earth Maps of January 2022 to contend that in all
these writ petitions the construction area, according to the maps
for the period prior to 31.12.2021, was only between 7% to 7.5%.
If that is the case, the Udaipur Development Authority could not
have processed the regularization unless such action was
preceded by approval of the State Government, which approval
was not obtained as required under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2012.
The entire exercise of regularization must therefore fail, and this
was rightly noted by the Layout Plan Committee, which rightly
revoked the previous proceedings by the impugned decision dated
27.03.2025.
27. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents also
submitted that Policy-2010 requires the saleable vis-a- vis facility
area ratio must be 60:40. Admittedly, the approved layouts which
were revoked consisted of ratio of 70:30. The requirement for
regularization is a saleable area of 60% and not 70%. It was
further contended that if the constructed area is added to the
saleable area, the ratio becomes 70:30, which is in violation of
Policy-2010.
28. 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.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (14 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
29. The learned counsels for respondents also submitted that
there are complaints from Khatedars who are affected by the
regularization and they claimed rights over the regularized lands,
yet they were not heard. This ground also justifies the action
taken in the present proceedings.
30. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
and intervenors submitted that the regularization fee was not paid
in accordance with the rates applicable under the Department’s
order dated 30.11.2012. This also caused a huge revenue loss to
the Udaipur Development Authority. While raising all the aforesaid
grounds, the learned counsel for the respondents justified the
cancellation of the layout plan and the further proceedings for
cancellation of allotment and lease deeds, and submitted that
interference by this Court is unwarranted in the circumstances of
the case.
31. 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
orders impugned require any interference.
32. The undisputed facts in the present cases are that the
petitioners herein are the purchasers of khatedari lands from the
rightful holders of khatedari rights through various registered sale
deeds. It is also undisputed that originally, the change in use of
the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes was not
done in compliance with Section 90A of the RLR Act, 1956, and
the development of the layout was carried out without approval of
any plan. The above position is not seriously disputed between the
parties.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (15 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
33. 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
in consequence of orders of regularisations by changing the use of
land 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:-
“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(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (16 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]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.”
33.1 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 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 are proposed to be
made.
34. 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 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (17 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
“[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 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (18 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
34.1 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.
34.2 In cases of regularization or allotment consequent
to the termination of rights and interests of the holder of
agricultural land who allowed the change of land use, the
holder is required to be heard. Sub-section (2) of Section 52
of the Act of 2023 also requires a specific notice, and the
grounds on which the proposed action is contemplated must
be specifically stated. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents and intervenors is that since
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (19 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
the proceedings for regularization and consequential
approval of the plan and issuance of allotment and execution
of lease deeds were the result of suo moto action, cancelling
the layout plan, which was the result of suo moto approval,
requires no issuance of a show-cause notice. This contention
is liable to be rejected at the threshold. The reason is that in
cases of regularization or allotment, either on request or suo
moto, upon vesting of the land as a consequence of
termination of rights and interests, the plan submitted by the
person having rights and interests is required to be
examined. If no such plan is submitted, the survey and plan
shall be prepared by the Development Authority. Upon
approval of the plan, whether submitted or prepared by the
authority, the allotment and lease deeds have to be made in
respect of the persons having interest prior to termination of
rights or their successors in interest. This means that the
allotment and execution of lease deeds must be made in
favor of the persons who had interest over such land thereby
some interest is created in favor of the holders of allotments
and lease deeds. If the contention of the respondents is
accepted, it would amount to a denial of hearing to the
persons who have been granted lease deeds pursuant to
allotment and regularization, as they would be deprived of
opportunity to present their case and would invite
cancellation without hearing. Thus, such a contention is
contrary to the requirements of Section 52 of the Act of
2023. Therefore, the impugned orders and consequential
orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (20 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
35. The impugned orders can also be examined in the context
of their merit and sustainability. The powers under Section 52 of
the Act of 2023 can only be invoked in limited situations. Such a
situation, in the context of the facts of the present case, relates to
misrepresentation of facts, collusion, and contravention of law. In
the entire proceedings resulting in the cancellation of the layout
plan, the only ground that would amount to misrepresentation of
facts as claimed by respondents is that the petitioners claimed the
constructed area was above 10% and that they were entitled to
70% saleable area. The learned counsels appearing for the
respondents submitted that, as per the Google Earth Map, the
constructed area was below 10%. They also claimed that the
saleable area and facility area must be in the ratio of 60:40 and
not 70:30, as claimed by the petitioners by submitting the plan,
and this was taken as one of the grounds for the cancellation of
the previous layout plan.
36. In this context, the Rule 15(4) as existed prior to the
amended notification dated 10.05.2022 is as follows:-
15. Regularisation and approval of layout
plan.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) The cases in which colonies developed
before 17th June, 1999 with a minimum ten
percent constructed area and with a maximum
seventy percent saleable area shall be
approved by the Local Authority subject to
fulfilment of other norms, if any, as may be
fixed by the State Government, from time to
time:
Provided that the cases of such colonies
having constructed area less than ten percent
or saleable area of more than seventy percent
shall be referred by the Local Authority with full(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (21 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]justification to the State Government for
appropriate direction.”
36.1 The said provision was amended on 10.05.2022, which
reads as follows:-
“9. Amendment of Rule 15.- In sub-rule (4)
of Rule 15 of the said Rules:-
(i) for the existing expression “before 17 th
June, 1999”, the expression “before 31 st
December, 2021” shall be substituted;
(ii) before the existing proviso, the
following new proviso shall be inserted,
namely:-
“Provided that facility area in layout plan
already approved shall not be reduced.” and
(iii) in existing proviso, after the existing
expression “Provided” and before the existing
expression “that the cases”, the expression
“further” shall be inserted.”
36.2 It is also relevant to refer to clarification issued by the
Department of Urban Development Housing and Local Self
Government vide letter dated 21.04.2012. The translated
English version of the said clause reads as follows:
“9-Regarding Suo-Motu Approval under
Section 90-A and Layout Plan Sanction:
Pursuant to Rule 15(3) of the Rajasthan Urban
Areas (Permission and Allocation for Non-
Agricultural Use of Agricultural Land) Rules,
2012, in colonies established on agricultural
land, where the khatedar (landholder) fails to
apply, suo-motu action shall be taken under
Section 90-A(8) including survey proceedings.
Subsequently, layout plans shall be sanctioned
while maintaining the prescribed amenity
areas, followed by issuances of lease deeds. In
cases where the amenity area prescribed is
fully met by the are under roads alone, the
layout plan may still be approved.
Further, the Revenue Department has, by order
dated 14.02.2022, delegated the powers of the
Tehsildar under Section 53(2)(i) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to the Authorized
officer for the duration of the campaign period.”
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (22 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
36.3 It is also relevant to refer the order of Government of
Rajasthan, Department of Urban Development dated
20.09.2021. The relevant provision reads as follows:-
“2. With respect to colonies situated upon
such agricultural lands for which sector Layout
Plans are yet to be sanctioned:
(i) Pattas and allotment letters issued by
housing cooperative societies after 17th June
1999 shall not be deemed legally valid. In
schemes submitted to the local authority, or
those surveyed and prepared suo motu, it must
be ascertained in accordance with Clause 25(3)
(XI) of the Order dated 06th January, 2016
whether the scheme pertains to the period
prior to or after 17th June, 1999.
For schemes preceding 17th June, 1999,
proceedings shall be undertaken under Section
90-A(B) while ensuring a ratio of 70:30. For
schemes subsequent to 17th June, 1999,
proceedings shall be conducted under Section
90-A(5) and 91 while maintaining a ratio of
60:40. ……….”
37. Subsequent to the amended notification, the existing
expression “before 17th June, 1999” was substituted with the
expression “before 31st December, 2021.” Before the 2022
amendment, if schemes were required to be regularized and such
schemes were prepared subsequent to 17th June, 1999, the
saleable and facility area were required to be maintained in a
60:40 ratio; in cases where schemes were prepared before 17th
June, 1999, the ratio should be 70:30. If the 2022 amendment
were not applicable, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the ratio of 60:40 should be
maintained and not 70:30 would have been sustainable. By virtue
of the substitution of the words “31st December, 2021” for the
existing words “17th June, 1999.” The requirement of maintaining
60:40 has been replaced with 70:30. Thus, it cannot be said that
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (23 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
submitting a plan maintaining a 70:30 ratio is an act of
misrepresentation of facts.
38. The requirement of construction of 10% of the layout, along
with maintaining 70% of saleable area, is a condition precedent to
maintain a claim for regularization. The respondents’ case is that
the construction area was less than 10%. To support this
contention, they relied upon the Google Earth images, which,
according to them, show the construction area to be between 7%
to 7.5%. In this regard clarification with regard to construction
area made in the order dated 20.03.2023 is relevant, which reads
as follows:-
“(c) Regarding plots created/constructed
as colonies on agricultural land: In respect
of colonies which had come into existence on
agricultural land put to non-agricultural use
prior to 31.12.2021, where more than 10% of
the plots have construction thereon, suo moto
proceedings under Section 90-A(8) and survey
proceedings shall be conducted by the
concerned local authority. In such colonies,
after ensuring a provision of 30% area for
facilities (including roads and parks) and
maintaining a minimum width of internal roads
at 30 feet, the survey/layout plan shall be
approved and freehold leases shall be issued
during the campaign period upon payment of
the prescribed charges. However, if
construction exists on more than 60% of the
plots, the width of internal roads may be kept
at 20 feet or more, as per site conditions.”
39. Looking at the above clarification, what is required is that
10% of the plots must have construction. This means that if such
constructions exist on part of the plot, the area of the entire plot
is required to be taken as constructed area and not just the actual
constructed area. The claims of the respondents, based on the
Google Earth photos, are founded on the fixation of the actual
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (24 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
constructed area vis-a-vis the total area covered under the layout.
That was not the requirement of 10%. The 10% constructed area
must be met in light of the clarification made by the Government
in the order dated 20.03.2023 (Annex.20). Any single unit area of
construction with compound wall over the plot shall be taken as
the entire area of the plot for calculating the constructed area. If
such a procedure has been adopted, the claim of the petitioners
that they have 10% constructed area and meet the eligibility
criteria for regularization cannot be said to be an act of
misrepresentation of facts. Thus, the grounds with regard to non-
compliance of 10% construction and the saleable area/facility area
ratio of 70:30 cannot be said to be valid grounds to set aside the
layout granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 2023.
40. The respondents have also taken the stand that there was
collusion between the petitioners and the then Secretary of the
Udaipur Development Authority, which resulted in the passing of
approval of the layout. The impugned order of cancellation shows
that the Layout Plan Committee consists of various authorities,
and the Secretary is not the only authority involved in the decision
to approve or disapprove the layout plan submitted by the interest
holders or surveyed or prepared by the Development Authority.
Since there are multiple persons in the Committee and the
approval of the layout was a collective decision of multiple persons
who are part of the Committee, it cannot be said that the
Secretary was hand in glove with the petitioners. The mere
initiation of some disciplinary proceedings against the Secretary of
the Udaipur Development Authority does not make him the sole
party responsible for the decision-making process for the approval
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (25 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
of the layout. There are no materials before authority evidencing
collusion between petitioners and Secretary except suspicion and
assumption. Without evidence, it cannot be said that the plan was
approved as a result of collusion.
41. Other facts, like the report of the Patwari and the report of
the Tehsildar, which were the foundation for the orders of
regularization under Section 90A(8) of the RLR Act, 1956, also
clearly indicate that the entire process of approval of plan, grant
of allotment and execution of lease deed were the result of strict
compliance with procedure and based on full satisfaction of all
members of Layout Plan Committee and it was collective decision
uninfluenced by any external factors. It is not the case of the
respondents that every officer who submitted reports that formed
the foundation for initiating the regularization proceedings was
also hand in glove with the petitioners. Thus, the ground of
collusion is not proved and it is not sustainable. The findings of
respondents in this regard suffers from perversity.
42. The other grounds set up by the respondents are that
there are contraventions of various provisions of law in
regularizing the land uses, approving the layout plan, and issuing
allotment and executing sale deeds. No specific provision has been
brought on record showing that the petitioners have violated any
provisions of law. The violation alleged by them is that there was
no 10% constructed area, and if the constructed area was below
10%, approval of the State Government was necessary. In the
present case, as discussed hereinbefore, while measuring the
constructed area, the authorities have taken actual constructed
area vis-à-vis the total area of the layout, which is contrary to the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (26 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
clarification made in the letter dated 20.03.2023 by the
Department of Urban Development, Housing and Local Self
Government. That letter clearly shows that the constructed area
has to be measured in the context that any single unit
construction with compound wall over the plotted area shall result
in computation of the entire extent of the plot, and if such a
procedure is adopted, the constructed area exists either minimum
of 10% or more, and not less than 10%. Therefore, there is no
requirement to obtain State Government approval for initiating the
regularization proceedings as the area of construction was more
than 10%. Further, the requirement of maintaining a 60:40 ratio
would apply in cases where regularization was taken up prior to
the amendment of 2022. After the amendment, for all
developments which took place prior to 31.12.2021, the ratio to
be maintained is 70:30 and not 60:40. The layout submitted by
the petitioner, which was approved in the year 2023, clearly
indicates 70:30 and there is no violation.
43. The respondents have taken the stand in the impugned
order that the constructed area was in addition to the 70%
saleable area. This claim made by the respondents has no legs to
stand on. When the facility area is left as 30%, the constructed
area shall be taken as part and parcel of the saleable area and not
as an additional area.
44. 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
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (27 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
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%
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 lieu of not
maintaining the said requirement. Thus, these grounds are also
not sustainable.
45. The other ground taken in the impugned orders was that
there were many lands of other khatedari holders regarding the
regularization. The orders passed under Section 90A(8) of the RLR
Act, 1956, reflect that regularization proceedings were taken up
considering the fact that land use was changed by virtue of
developed scheme. Once such use has been changed without
approval, the competent Authority is entitled to terminate the
rights and interest of holders of such agricultural land. If any
khatedari holders had any claims over such land, they could have
participated in the proceedings under Section 90A of the RLR Act,
1956, in pursuance of the general notice issued to them; and the
Patwari report and Tehsildar report, which were obtained prior to
the passing of the final order under Section 90A, do not reflect
any such rights exist. Any khatedari holders who had rights and
interest prior to the termination of their rights and interest could
have made an application for grant of allotment and execution of
lease-deed. They have not done so thus far. If khatedari holders
really had such rights, they could not have kept quiet by failing to
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (28 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
make applications for allotment and execution of lease-deeds in
pursuance of termination of rights and interest they have in the
land in question; they have neither participated in the proceedings
under Section 90A nor claimed any allotment or grant of lease-
deeds. The grievance now canvassed by the third-party
intervenors is not supported by any material to show that they
held any rights in the land in question, and their silence also
shows that they have no grievance regarding regularization. Thus,
some complaints made by other khatedari holders without
establishing any right or interest in the subject matter could not
have been made a ground for cancellation of the previous
approval order.
46. The last ground taken in the impugned order shows that
the regularization fee was not paid in accordance with the
prevailing circular. If the Authorities found that any regularization
charges were unpaid as per the existing applicable orders, they
could have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners for
determination of such charges. However, they did not do so.
Instead of taking such recourse, that ground cannot serve as a
foundation to set aside the regularization proceedings, nor can it
be a ground to set aside the layout approval and consequential
allotment and execution of lease-deeds. Thus, the impugned
orders on merits also are unsustainable.
47. The entire foundation for the present proceedings is the
audit report. The audit report was not made available to the
petitioners, and how the auditors have arrived at the financial loss
has also not been indicated. Perhaps the grounds on which the
Audit Department concluded financial irregularities were untenable
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (29 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
grounds and based misunderstanding of applicable provisions and
lack of knowledge with regard to amended town policies.
48. The important factor for proposing present action in the
present cases is the letter from the Department of Urban
Development dated 19.03.2025. The above letter clearly indicates
that a direction was given to the Secretary to cancel the
allotment, which virtually amounts to a positive direction to
cancel, leaving no discretion with the authorities whether to cancel
or not, depending upon proof of facts. Such direction was given by
the Head of Department. Such communication has tendency to
influence any officer more so in the context of financial
irregularities.
49. The alleged financial irregularities and the quantum of loss
assessed by the Local Fund Audit are inflated and magnified claim
and contrary to the rules and regulations prevailing at the time of
passing the approval of the layout. Unnecessary hype has been
created by projecting high financial irregularities, even though
there are no such irregularities in regularizing the schemes and in
the grant of approval of the layout and consequential allotment
and execution of lease-deeds. The entire things were done
procedurally and this Court finds that there is no irregularity.
Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
50. Once the impugned orders of cancellation of layout plan
are setting aside and any consequential actions are also required
to be set aside. Thus, the orders of cancellation of allotments and
execution of lease deeds and any notice issued proposing to
cancel allotment and execution of lease deed are also liable to be
set aside by allowing the writ petitions.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29869] (30 of 30) [CW-7949/2025]
51. In the result the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders dated 27.03.2025 cancelling the layout plans, allotments,
and lease deeds are set aside. Consequently, the orders passed
prior to impugned cancellation orders prohibiting constructions
and transfers and registrations of subject lands shall inoperative
and shall not be adhered to.
52. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
53. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK/-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link