Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Piyush Maru vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52238] (1 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4675/2023
Govind Agarwal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Ji Agarwal, Aged About
67 Years, Resident Of 2, Mangaldeep, Panchwati, Near R.k. Mall,
Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Urban Development And Housing,
Government Of Rajasthan, Food Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary-I, Department Of Urban Development And
Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18007/2022
1. Piyush Maru S/o Shri Shanti Lal Maru, Aged About 41
Years, By Caste Jain, And Resident Of 13-14 Bhah Bagh,
New Fatehpura, Udaipur.
2. Chirag Maru S/o Shri Shanti Lal Maru, Aged About 38
Years, By Caste Jain, And Resident Of 13-14 Bhah Bagh,
New Fatehpura, Udaipur.
3. Monika W/o Shri Chirag Maru, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Jain, And Resident Of 13-14 Bhah Bagh, New
Fatehpura, Udaipur.
4. Sonali W/o Shri Piyush Maru, Aged About 41 Years, By
Caste Jain, And Resident Of 13-14 Bhah Bagh, New
Fatehpura, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Urban Development And Housing,
Government Of Rajasthan, Food Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52238] (2 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
2. Joint Secretary-I, Department Of Urban Development And
Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Harsh Mehta
Mr. Sanjay Nahar
Mr. Rahul Mehta
Mr. Abhishek Mehta
Mr. Chirag Kalani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajersh Panwar, Sr.Adv. - cum-
AAG with Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur &
Ms. Meenal Singhvi
Mr. Vijay Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order Reportable Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 21/11/2025 Pronounced on : 17/12/2025
1. Before examining the issue raised in the present writ petitions on its merits, it would be appropriate to highlight the manner in which the matter has proceeded before this Court. 1.1 The writ petition being SB CWP No.18007/2022 (Piyush Maru & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was first listed on 02.01.2023. On the said date, Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal appeared on an advance copy being served by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that he would serve copy of the writ petition to Mr. Rajesh Parihar, who usually appeared for the respondents No.1 & 2. Considering the submissions made, the Court recorded the (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (3 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] presence of the counsel appearing for the then Urban Improvement Trust ('UIT') and also ordered the matter to be listed on 19.01.2023 directing to reflect the name of Mr. Rajesh Parihar as counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 - Urban Development & Housing Department so also the name of Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal as counsel for the respondent No.3 - UIT, in the cause list.
1.2 Subsequently, another writ petition being SBCWP No.4675/2023 (Govind Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) came to be filed and on 12.04.2023, it was ordered to connect the present writ petition along with SBCWP No.4675/2023. It is noted that subsequent thereto, the present writ petition as well as writ petition bearing SBCWP No.4675/2023 have been listed and heard together.
1.3 It is also noted from the order-sheet dated 28.08.2023 that there was some issue with regard to the counsel engaged by the UIT and the State. It is further noted that Mr. Vijay Purohit, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the UIT and submitted that he is having instructions to appear on behalf of the UIT as well as State Government. At the same time Mr. Rajesh Parihar contended that he is having instructions to appear on behalf of the State Government. Later, an affidavit was sought from the Deputy Legal Remembrances to clarify the situation with regard to the counsel, who would be representing the State Government. Thereafter, the issue was sorted out and it was noted that Mr. Rajesh Parihar would be appearing on behalf of the State Government and Mr. Vijay Purohit would be appearing on behalf of the UIT.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (4 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 1.4 Both the writ petitions were listed on 22.08.2024 and learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made a request that the petitioners' grievance would be substantially redressed, in case, the UIT / State Government, whosoever is competent, is directed to amend / modify the Zonal Development Plan in furtherance of the Notification dated 27.12.2022 issued by the State Government. Considering such submission, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the competent authority of the respondents to issue modified / amended Zonal Development Plan in compliance of the Notification dated 27.12.2022, in accordance with law. For doing the needful four weeks' time was granted.
1.5 The matters were again taken up on 22.11.2024, wherein learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - UIT submitted that the matter was referred to the State Government for making necessary corrections. However, the State Government has sent the matter back to the respondent - UIT for undertaking the corrections at its own level, after coming into force of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023. It was submitted that on account of the above fact, the compliance of the order dated 22.08.2024 could not be made and further submitted that necessary corrections shall be made within a period of three weeks.
1.6 On 27.01.2025, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Udaipur Development Authority (the then UIT, Udaipur) submitted that they are at the verge of completing the exercise for issuing the modified / amended Zonal Development Plan in compliance of (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (5 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] the order dated 22.08.2024 and prayed for time to place the modified / amended zonal development plan before the Court. 1.7 On 03.03.2025, a statement was given on behalf of the respondents that modified/amended Zonal Development Plan is almost ready and copy of the same would be placed before this court on the next date of hearing. Later, the matters were again listed on 26.03.2025, wherein the respondents sought last opportunity to submit the modified/amended Zonal Development Plan before this court. It was noted that in case, the needful is not done, then the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur as well as the Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur shall remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. However, the matters were adjourned on numerous occasions.
1.8 It is noted that subsequently, in April 2025, an application was filed by learned counsel for the respondents seeking recalling of the order dated 22.08.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 16.05.2025, wherein a direction was issued to the then Principal Secretary - Mr. Kunji Lal Meena to file an affidavit indicating therein as to whether while issuing the notification dated 27.12.2022, making reference to the minutes of the meeting dated 28.10.2022 of UDA, the modifications suggested therein in relation to the petitioners' land were also taken into consideration or not. This order-sheet so also filing of recalling application indicates that there was change in the stand of UIT/UDA, Udaipur and subsequent thereto, they proceeded to contest the writ petitions. Thereafter, the matters came up before (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (6 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] this Court to decide the recalling application. However, learned counsel appearing for the UDA / State Government submitted that instead of hearing arguments on the recalling application, the matters may be finally heard.
1.9 The submission made by learned counsel for the State Government / UDA was not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were finally heard.
2. Since the above titled writ petitions involve common issues based on similar facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. However, for brevity, the facts, as narrated in SBCWP No.18007/2022 are taken into consideration as under:-
2.1. The petitioners jointly own an agricultural land ad measuring 0.8600 hectare in Khasra No.1697 of Village Sisarma, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The petitioners seek to build a hotel/resort on their land however, on account of alleged discrepancy in the proposed land use map annexed to Master Plan-2031 are facing difficulty in land conversion.
2.2. The Master Plan-2031 for Udaipur City was approved by the State Government and came into force on 24.09.2013. Therein, G-1 zone has been defined as a special zone to include catchment area of river, streams, reservoirs, and Picchola, Fateh Sagar and Uday Sagar Lake in which construction is restricted. G-1 zone also means upper stream area upto 100 meters from Full Tank Level (FTL) of lake.
2.3. In the proposed land use scheme map of the Master Plan, Rajeev Gandhi Park situated on Rani Road has been shown in the western side of Fateh Sagar Lake. The said Rani Road is situated (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (7 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] between Rajeev Gandhi Park and Fateh Sagar Lake. This Rajeev Gandhi Park has been shown as park in the land use scheme map of the Master Plan and G-1 zone has been reflected all around it in all four directions. However, Rajeev Gandhi Park is not part of the Fateh Sagar Lake and is situated on other side of the road and on three sides of the said Park, adjoining land is hilly upscale land and is quite far from 100 meter mark of FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake. The said area around Rajeev Gandhi Park falls under G-2 zone but has been wrongly been shown as G-1 zone in proposed land use scheme map of the Master Plan.
2.4. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 08.04.2019 highlighting the discrepancy in the map and sought correction of the same. The said representation was forwarded to Udaipur Improvement Trust (UIT), now known as Udaipur Development Authority (UDA). The UIT, vide its detailed report dated 19.06.2019 (Annex.-2) accepted the discrepancy and recommended modification in the map annexed to the Master Plan.
2.5. Vide letter dated 11.02.2020 (Annex.-3), respondent no.2 sought contour map of land in question, Rajeev Gandhi Park, Rani Road and Fateh Sagar Lake so also map of 100 meter distance from FTL and maximum catchment area/FTL area from last 40-50 years. It also sought report from Irrigation Department with respect to maximum catchment area/FTL area of the Fateh Sagar Lake which was forwarded by UIT to the said department. Thereafter, Executive Engineer of Water Resource Division, Udaipur replied on 08.06.2022 (Annex.-5) alongwith the demarcated map of FTL area of Fateh Sagar Lake.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (8 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 2.6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners since wanted to convert their land for the purpose of building a resort on their land, approached the State Government by filing a representation. Thereupon, State Government sought report from UIT qua the land in question and UIT, vide its report dated 09.12.2021 (Annex.-6), highlighted the need for correction in the discrepancy in the map annexed to the Master Plan while referring to the Clause 5.6.2 of the Master Plan, so also communicated that the land in question is situated beyond the Rajeev Gandhi Park and between the said park and Fateh Sagar Lake, there is a road. 2.7. Responding to the aforesaid letter dated 09.12.2021, respondent no.2 communicated on 11.01.2022 (Annex.-7) that the Zonal Development Plan of Master Plan-2031 of Udaipur City is being prepared and if there is any conflict between the map and the Master Plan, the UIT can rectify the same in Zonal Development Plan and get it approved at meeting of UIT and thereafter, forward it to State Government for correction/amendment in the land use map annexed to the Master Plan-2031. A reminder was also sent on 12.07.2022 (Annex.-8) by respondent no.2 to UIT to comply with the communications dated 09.12.2021 and 11.01.2022.
2.8. A public notice came to be published on 29.09.2022 (Annex.-9) whereby objections and suggestions were invited in draft maps of Zonal Development Plan of all sub-zones, in response to which, the petitioner no.2 Chirag Maru submitted a representation on 30.09.2022 (Annex.-10) highlighting the discrepancy regarding adjoining land of Rajeev Gandhi Park been shown as G-1 instead of G-2 while referring to earlier (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (9 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] communications dated 19.06.2019, 09.12.2021, 11.01.2022 and 12.07.2022. Thereafter, the meeting was held and as many as 27 objections, including that of the petitioners, were decided in the meeting and in the minutes of the said meeting conducted on 28.10.2022 (Annex.-12), a note was made with regard to the objections made by petitioners to the effect that land of petitioners is more than 100 meters away from the FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake thus, a correction is needed for it to be reflected under G-2 zone.
2.9. The Senior Town Planner, Udaipur Zone also sent a communication dated 20.10.2022 (Annex.-11) addressed to UIT to place the controversy regarding the correction sought in the next meeting of the Trust. The meeting was conducted on 28.10.2022 and vide letter dated 11.11.2022 (Annex.-13) it was communicated by UIT to respondent no.2 that in compliance of letter dated 11.01.2022 and 12.07.2022, the discrepancy of petitioners' land was put before the meeting of Trust and it was decided necessary corrections/amendments were required to be carried out in the map rectifying typographical error. 2.10. The primary grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to non-action of the State Government in carrying out the correction in the land use map annexed to the Master Plan 2013-2031 of Udaipur City, despite the same been communicated at various occasions.
3. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta while arguing SBCWP No.18007/2022, made the following submissions :-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (10 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
(i)- The master plan of Udaipur was notified on 24.09.2013, which came into force w.e.f. 24.09.2014. Referring to Clauses 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 of the Master Plan-2031, as quoted in para 9 of the writ petition, it was argued that Green Zone-1, as defined in clause 5.6.2, is an area within a radius of 100 meters from the FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake. While taking this Court to Clause 5.6.2, it was contended that the area which is beyond 100 meters from the FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake, Pichhola and Udai Sagar (present writ petition pertains to Fateh Sagar Lake), which is beyond Green Zone-1, would be treated to be controlled zone as per the Government Notification dated 10.12.1999 and in such area the construction permission would be given as per bye-laws-2000 issued on 22.05.2000. That apart the distance as notified by the State Government or by various courts would also be construed to be the limits for the purpose of considering Green Zone-1.
(ii)- The Green Zone-2 is defined in Clause 5.6.3, which means the area adjoining to Green Zone-1 and in Green Zone-2 activities such as dairy, horticulture, nurseries, farmhouses, resorts, amusement parks, water parks, disneyland etc. would be permitted. While granting permission for such activities, the environmental issues would be taken into consideration. It is further notified that in Green Zone-2 area, the abadi area of revenue villages would continue to remain same and abadi expansion would be permitted as per Clause 4.3 ( N). The area adjoining lakes with the permissions already granted in compliance of the orders passed by various Courts so also the permissions earlier approved / granted and the land conversions (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (11 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] in and around the lake area, would be included in Green Zone-2 area. That apart, the judgments passed by various Courts from time to time for these areas would be treated as part of the Master Plan.
(iii)- The land belonging to the petitioners is at a distance of more than 100 meters from the FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake and as per the description given in the Master Plan, more particularly Clause 5.6.2, it falls in Green Zone-2 category, yet, while preparing the map, the land belonging to the petitioner is shown as falling in the Green Zone-1 category. That being the apparent mistake, necessary corrections are required to be made in the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan.
(iv)- While further elaborating his submissions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Rajeev Gandhi Park is shown in the Green Zone-2 area, whereas other areas around and further away from it has erroneously been marked as Green Zone-1 in the map attached to the Master Plan. It is submitted that there is a road in between the boundary of Fateh Sagar Lake and Rajeev Gandhi Park and the land belonging to the petitioners is beyond 130 - 150 meters from the FTL of Fateh Sagar Lake.
(v)- While highlighting this factual position, it is contended that the mistake is apparent and therefore, appropriate direction is required to be issued to correct such mistake and the land belonging to the petitioners is required to be shown to be falling in the Green Zone-2 area. Further, on account of incorrect inclusion of land of petitioners under G-2 zone in the map of Master Plan, (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (12 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] their right to property protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution is being violated.
(vi)- The mistake when came to the notice of the present petitioners, they submitted a representation before the State Government on 08.04.2019, however, the same was not considered, however, a report was submitted by the respondent - UIT on 19.06.2019, wherein the claim submitted by the petitioners was shown to be justified. Later a detailed report was sought by the State Government from UIT vide communication dated 11.02.2020. He further highlighted that on 11.01.2022, the State Government suggested the UIT, Udaipur for rectification of the mistake which was followed by reminder on 12.07.2022. Later, objections were invited by the UIT for Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan on 29.09.2022. The petitioners submitted their objections on 30.09.2022. Thereafter, Senior Town Planner issued a communication on 20.10.2022 with the direction to comply with the letters issued by the State Government dated 11.01.2022 & 12.07.2022.
(vii)- A meeting was convened by the UIT on 28.10.2022 for considering the objection received in compliance of public notice dated 29.09.2022. The objection submitted by the petitioners was duly considered and resolution was passed to make correction and it was resolved that the matter be recommended to the State Government as the land belonging to the petitioners is beyond 500 meters from FTL.
(viii)- UIT vide letter dated 11.11.2022 clearly highlighted that the land belonging to the petitioners is beyond 100 meters of FTL (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (13 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] of Fateh Sagar Lake while referring to minutes dated 28.10.2022. The State Government also approved the amendments proposed in meeting dated 28.10.2022 by its notification dated 27.12.2022.
While referring to the chain of events, which took place for the purpose of rectifying the mistake, it is submitted that despite petitioners' objection being positively considered and resolution having been passed, there was no reason for the UIT to roll back on its own decision. The State Government has earlier positively considered the claim of the petitioners, but for no good reason, the UDA (the then UIT) as well as State Government taken a complete somersault and are contesting the present writ petitions.
(ix)- Learned Senior Counsel, while referring to the earlier order- sheets in these writ petitions, submitted that earlier the UIT/UDA agreed to rectify the mistake and for rectifying such mistake, adjournments were sought on numerous occasions and not only this, an affirmative statement was made by counsel for the UIT / UDA that they are in process of rectifying the mistake in the map attached to the Master Plan and that being so, there appears no reason to back out from the stand which was taken by the counsel appearing on behalf of UIT / UDA and surprisingly, the State Government had earlier positively opined for correction of the mistake qua the land belonging to the petitioners has also taken a somersault. Such action is nothing but an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
(x)- While referring to the reply of the State Government so also the reply filed by the UIT, it is argued that the factual position with regard to the petitioners' land falling in Green Zone-2 is not (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (14 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] denied. On the contrary, there is a clear admission that the petitioners' objection was approved in the meeting dated 28.10.2022.
(xi)- Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the malafides of the respondents are writ large. Earlier they gave affirmative statement before the Court that necessary amendment / correction would be made in the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan and sought time on numerous occasions and thereafter, all of a sudden decided to move an application for recalling of order dated 22.08.2024.
It is submitted that the additional affidavit has been filed by Mr. Kunjilal Meena, the then Secretary, is factually not correct and same is in clear contradiction to Note No.427 & 428 (Annex.AA/4).
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments :-
(i)- Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
: (2025) 8 SCC 518
(ii)- State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. : (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1102)
(iii)- B.S. Sandhu Vs. Government of India & Ors. : (2014) 12 SCC 172.
(iv)- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. : (2011) 1 SCC 744
(v)- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 338
(vi)- Municipal Corporation for City of Pune & Anr. Vs. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. & Ors. : (1995) 3 SCC 434 (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (15 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
(vii)- M/s. IMI Norgren Heroin (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, U.P., Noida & Ors. : 2018 Supreme (All) 1364
(viii)- Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. :
(2016 SCC OnLine Raj 144)
(ix)- Director General, Research & Development Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2011 SCC OnLine Raj 3197
(x)- E.I.H. Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 21
4. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in SB CWP No.4675/2023, while adopting the submissions made by learned Senior counsel Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that the petitioner's case in SB CWP No.4675/2023 is on better footing than the petitioners in SB CWP No.18007/2022 as his land is even beyond the petitioners' land mentioned in SB CWP No.18007/2022, therefore, his writ petition also deserves to be allowed and his land be reflected in G-2 zone in the land use map of the Master Plan.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar assisted by Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur & Ms. Meenal Singhvi while praying for dismissal of the writ petitions, made following submissions :-
(i)- The land in question was purchased by the petitioners (SB CWP No.18007/2022) in the year 2018 and at that point of time, they were aware that the land falls under G-1 zone as the Master Plan was notified in the Year 2013. Thus, at later stage, they could not have raised the issue seeking change in the Master Plan, also (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (16 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] considering the fact that the predecessor-in-interest did not challenge the inclusion of land in question in G-1 zone.
(ii)- As per the directions passed by the Court in order dated 12.01.2017 in the case of Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : CIVIL WRIT (PIL) No.1554 of 2004, more particularly direction No.5, larger public interest is to be seen while considering any change in the Green Zone and individual interest is required to be overlooked so as to protect the environment.
(iii)- The Fatehsagar Lake has national importance and area around it falls under eco-sensitive zone thus, for sub-serving the personal interest of the petitioners, the environment cannot be compromised by making amendment in the Master Plan.
(iv)- In the case of Rajendra Kumar Razdan Vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4271/1999], vide order dated 05.09.2000, it has been observed that land situated in radius of 200 meters around the Fatehsagar lake falls under G-1 zone. Therefore, the land of petitioners falling within the said radius cannot be included under G-2 zone.
(v)- The objections raised by the petitioners which were considered in the meeting dated 28.10.2022 have not been considered while issuing the notification dated 27.12.2022 which is evident from the Additional Affidavit filed by Kunji Lal Meena- the then Secretary. Furthermore, the directions issued by the State Government vide communication dated 11.01.2022 have not been complied with by the UIT (now UDA) which is an admitted position as per the Additional Affidavit filed by the UIT in (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (17 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] furtherance of its recalling application. Therefore, in absence of receipt of any resolution from UIT as mentioned in the said communication, State Government did not consider the objections of petitioners while issuing the said notification dated 27.12.2022 vide which the amended Master Plan was notified.
(vi)- The petitioners have not challenged the amended Master Plan published vide notification dated 27.12.2022.
(vii)- Vide communication dated 16.09.2022, the State Government has decided to maintain the land in question in G-1 zone and petitioners have not laid challenge to the same, thus, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. The said communication dated 16.09.2022 falls within the ambit of G-1 zone defined under Clause 5.6.2 whereby power has been given to State Government to declare area as G-1 zone.
(viii)- So far as SB CWP No.4675/2023 is concerned, no relief can be granted to the petitioner therein as he has neither filed objections unlike the petitioners in SB CWP No.18007/2022 nor he has approached the authorities vide any representation. Moreover, the documents annexed in SB CWP No.4675/2023 are related to the petitioners in SB CWP No.18007/2022 thus, petitioner in SB CWP No.4675/2023 cannot be granted relief as sought for.
6. Mr. Vijay Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UDA has submitted that submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State may also be considered as submissions made on behalf of the UDA/UIT and considering the issue, which directly relates to environment, cannot be compromised in any manner and decision not to accept the (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (18 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] objection of the petitioners is based on correct interpretation of Clauses 5.6.2 & 5.6.3 of the Master Plan and interpretation as sought to be suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners is incorrect and interpretation is sought to be given so as to benefit the petitioners. However, the interpretation of such clauses is to be seen in the larger public interest. Based on the above submissions, it is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. The core issue raised in the present writ petitions is with regard to the correction / modification in the land use map of the Master Plan-2031 of Udaipur so also the interpretation of Clauses 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 of the said Master Plan. The petitioners are contending that the land in question falls outside the defined Green Zone-1 category, however, on account of apparent mistake, it has been shown to be falling in Green Zone-1 category in the proposed land use map.
8.1 Per contra, the submission of the State / UDA is that there is no error in the map annexed to the Master Plan and the land in question has rightly been shown in Green Zone-1 category. 8.2 Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioners in order to contend that the mistake is apparent and the same is required to be rectified by the respondents. It is to be noted that the power to make modification or correction in the Master Plan rests primarily with the State Government acting through Urban Development & Housing Department and associated bodies like Udaipur Development Authority (the then (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (19 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] UIT). The preparation of the Master Plan requires experts' input to ensure compliance and balance competing public and private interest for land use and planning matters. As a matter of fact, dispute with regard to correction of Master Plan involves complex factual issues like environmental ramifications or allegations of procedural impropriety in exercise of statutory power of the State Government or the development authority. Considering such complexity, the Courts generally refrain to examine such complex issues. However, there is limited scope of interference which this Court can exercise considering peculiar facts and circumstances if any procedural impropriety is highlighted or any arbitrary / irrational decision is reflected.
8.3 This Court is mindful of the settled legal position that the formulation and correction in the master plan falls within the policy domain in the executive branch. Judicial review is limited to examine the legality of the process, ensuring ultra-vires actions are prevented, according to the principles of natural justice. 8.4. It is noted that all the parties to the writ petitions have placed on record various documents and communications to substantiate their claims which require an in-depth analysis in order to adjudicate the grievance raised by the petitioners. Before delving into the series of documents placed before this Court, it would not be out of place to mention here that this Court is aware that this is a factual analysis however, in the interest of justice and considering the prolonged period of litigation, this Court deems it appropriate to adjudicate this matter on merits as the limited issue before this Court is whether there is a correction (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (20 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] required in the proposed land use map of the Master Plan 2031 of Udaipur. It would also be appropriate to mention that this Court in the present writ petitions is not adjudicating the distance which ought to be included under G-1 zone or G-2 zone rather is only concerned with the interpretation of the Master Plan and the factual position produced before this Court. The importance of environmental issues and sustainable development cannot be mitigated by any means however, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the issue regarding importance of tourism and development of hotels vis-à-vis environmental concerns is not a subject matter which requires consideration in the present writ petitions, rather the issue which has been raised vide the present writ petitions pertained to 'correction' in the land use map of the Master Plan which undisputedly has to be in consonance with the contents of the Master Plan. Therefore, the present writ petitions are being decided considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present matters.
Thus, keeping into consideration, the above position of law and limited scope of interference, it would be appropriate to examine the present case on merits.
9. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners so also the respondents on Clause 5.6.2 and Clause 5.6.3 of the Master Plan.
9.1. Before considering the submissions as advanced by the parties and to examine the case on merit, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause 5.6.2 and Clause 5.6.3 of the Master Plan- 2031 of Udaipur:-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (21 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] "5.6.2 xzhu {ks=&1 bl fo"ks'k {ks= esa unh] ukys tyk'k; rFkk fiNkSyk] Qrglkxj ,oa mn;lkxj rkyc dk ty Hkjko {ks= gS tks iw.kZ:i ls fuekZ.k fu'ks/k jgsxkA xzhu {ks=&1 ls vfHkizk; >hy ds Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= ls 100 ehVj rd dk vij&LVªhe dk {ks=] tks fd ekSds ij fjDr Ñf'k Hkwfe {ks=] ls gSA fiNkSyk ,oa Qrglkxj ds xzhu {ks=&1 ds i'pkr~ ds {ks= esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fnukad 10-12-1999 dks vf/k?kksf'kr fu;af=r fuekZ.k {ks= esa fnukad 22-05-2000 dk mDr {ks= gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r Hkou fofu;e 2000 ds vuqlkj Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr vuqKs; gksxhA blds vykok jkT;
ljkdj }kjk ;k ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr nwjh Hkh ekU; gksxh ysfdu iwoZ esa l{ke Lohd`fr ls fd;s x;s fuekZ.kksa dks lek;ksftr ekuk tkosxkA lTtux<+ vHk;kj.k ds pkjksa vksj 100 ehVj ;k ou foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr iV~Vh xzhu {ks=&1 ds varxZr jgsxhA mDr {ks= fuekZ.k fu'ks/k {ks= jgsxk ysfdu iwoZ esa l{ke Lohd`fr ls fd;s x;s fuekZ.kksa dks lek;ksftr ekuk tkosxkA Qrglkxj ds mRrj esa cM+h tkus okyh lM+d dk uhep ekrk pkSjkgs ij fLFkr x<+h jko ukeh Hkwfe dk Hkw&mi;ksx jkT; Lrjh; Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu lfefr cSBd fnukad 04-07-2006 esa okf.kfT;d ¼gksVy½ iz;kstukFkZ Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu gks tkus ds dkj.k bls Commitment ekurs gq;s Hkw&mi;ksx ekufp= esa okf.kT;d Hkw&mi;ksx ds vUrxZr n"kkZ;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl Hkw&mi;ksx ds laca/k esa vfxze dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh vkns"kksa ds v/;/khu gksxhA 5-6-3 xzhu {ks=&2 bl fo"ks'k {ks= esa unh] ukys tyk'k; ds xzhu {ks=&1 ls lVs gq;s {ks= ls rkRi;Z gS ftlesa vYi ?kuRo ds mi;ksx tSls nqX/k "kkyk] Qyks|ku] ikS/k"kkyk] QkeZ gkml] fjlksVZl~] ,E;wtesUV ikdZ] okVj ikdZ] fMtuhys.M bR;kfn fu;kstu ds ekin.Mksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s vuqKs; jgsxsA ,sls {ks=ksa esa Hkw&mi;ksx vuqKs; djrs le; i;kZoj.k dks /;ku esa j[kk tkosA jktLo xzkeksa dk vkcknh {ks= foLrkj vuqKs; gksxkA bu >hyksa ds fy;s ,ao >hyksa ds vkl&ikl ds {ks= esa] ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk tkjh vkns"k] iwoZ esaz tkjh vuqeksnu] Lohd`rh;k ,oa Hkw&:ikar.k bR;kfn ekU; jgsxsA bl {ks= ds fy, ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk le;≤ ij ikfjr fu.kZ; ekLVj Iyku ds Hkkx ekusa tk;saxsA"
9.2. A perusal of the Clause 5.6.2 reveals that for a land to be covered under the ambit of Green Zone-1, any of the following criteria has to be satisfied:-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (22 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
(i) Land within 100 meter of the upper stream area from FTL from the lake (in the present case, relevant lake is Fatehsagar Lake); or
(ii) Land declared to be so by State Government; or
(iii) Land declared to be so by Courts.
9.3. This Court in order to adjudicate as to whether there is discrepancy in the proposed land use map as alleged by the petitioners has to examine as to whether the land of petitioners falls under any of the above categories.
10. First, this Court will proceed to examine the case of petitioners in SB CWP No.18007/2022.
10.1 It is noted that the petitioners filed a representation, upon which a report was sought from UIT by State Government and the same was communicated by UIT on 19.06.2019. Vide said communication, it was mentioned that Rajeev Gandhi Park has been reflected as 'park' in the land use map however, the land around Rajeev Gandhi Park has been reflected as G-1 zone. Land around the park is beyond 100 meter from FTL and is shown under G-2 zone in the master plan. Thus, it was suggested that it would be appropriate to reflect the land around Rajeev Gandhi Park as G-2 zone in the proposed land use map annexed to the Master Plan 2031. For ready reference, the said communication is reproduced hereinbelow:
"dk;kZy; uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ Øekad % ,Q&7@192 fnukad 19-06-2019 la;qDr "kklu lfpo&f}rh;] uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkolu foHkkx] jktLFkkuA (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (23 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] fo'k;% mn;iqj ds ekLVj Iyku&2031 ds Hkw&mi;ksx Iyku&2031 ds uD"ks esa jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds ikl xyr vafdr Hkw&mi;ksx xzhu&1 dh Drafting Error dks nq:Lr djus ckcr~A izlax% vkidk i= Øekad i-2¼15½ufofo@mn;iqj@2019 fnukad 08- 04-2019 egksn;th] mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk izklafxd i= ls izkIr vH;kosnu esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vuqØe esa izdj.k dk ijh{k.k djrs gq, viuh fVIi.kh@rF;kRed fjiksVZ fHktokus ls voxr djok;k x;k gSA vr% izdj.k esa ekLVj Iyku ,ao ekSdk fLFkfr vuqlkj U;kl dh fVIi.kh@rF;kRed fjiksVZ fuEukuqlkj gS %& 1- ;g fd mn;iqj "kgj dk ekLVj Iyku&2031 jkT; ljdkj ls vuqeksnu mijkUr o'kZ 2013 esa ykxw fd;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd vuqeksfnr ekLVj Iyku&2031 dh fjiksVZ ds i`'B la[;k 65 ij fcUnw la[;k 5-6-2 esa xzhu {ks=&1 dks fuEukuqlkj ifjHkkf'kr fd;k gqvk gS& Þbl fo"ks'k {ks= esa unh] ukys] tyk"k; rFkk fiNkSyk] Qrglkxj ,ao mn;lkxj rkykc dk ty Hkjko {ks= gS tks iw.kZ:i ls fuekZ.k fu'ks/k jgsxkA xzhu {ks=&1 ls vfHkizk; >hy ds Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= ls 100 ehVj rd dk vij&LVªhe dk {ks= tks fd ekSds ij fjDr Ñf'k Hkwfe {ks= ls gSA ß 3- ;g fd vuqeksfnr ekLVj Iyku&2031 ds izLrkfor Hkw&mi;ksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa Qrglkxj >hy ds if"pe fn"kk dh rjQ U;kl }kjk fodflr fd;k x;k jktho xka/kh ikdZ tks fd jkuh jksM uked lM+d ij fLFkr gSA mDr lM+d ekSds ij fodflr jktho xka/kh ikdZ ,oa Qrglkxj >hy ds e/; fLFkr gksdj bUgsa vyx djrh gSA bl ikdZ dks ekLVj Iyku ds izLrkfor] Hkw&mi;ksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa ikdZ ds :i esa gh Li'V :i ls n"kkZ;k gqvk gSA ijUrq blds pkjksa vksj xzhu {ks=&1 n"kkZ fn;k x;k gSA 4- ;g fd jktho xka/kh ikdZ tks fd ekSds ij >hy dk Hkkx ugha gksdj >hy ds nwljh rjQ NksVh igkM+h ds :i esa fLFkr gSA jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds rhuksa rjQ dh lehih; Hkwfe;ka tks fd igkfMuqek gksdj ÅapkbZ ij fLFkr gS rFkk Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= ls 100 ehVj ls vf/kd nwjh ij fLFkr gS] ftUgsa ekLVj Iyku esa xzhu {ks=&2 izLrkfor dj n"kkZ;k gqvk gSA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa ekSds dh fLFkfr vuqlkj jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds rhuksa rjQ ekLVj Iyku&2031 ds izLrkfor Hkw&mi;ksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa xzhu {ks=&1 vafdr dj n"kkZ;k gqvk gS ftls lehih; n"kkZ;s x;s Hkw&mi;ksx vuqlkj gh xzhu {ks+=&2 la"kksf/kr dj n"kkZ;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA"
10.2 Subsequent thereto, the petitioners filed an application seeking conversion of their land upon which too, a factual report was sought from UIT. Consequently, a factual report dated (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (24 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 09.12.2021 was communicated to the State Government wherein in unequivocal terms it was stated that the land of petitioners does not fall within the ambit of eco-sensitive zone so also that distance of land is 129 meter to 150 meter from FTL i.e. more than 100 meter distance provided for G-1 zone in the Master Plan. Further, it was also mentioned that the land of petitioners is not adjoining Fateh Sagar lake rather is adjacent to Rajeev Gandhi Park. Moreso, the contradiction between the master plan and the map was highlighted and guidance was sought to propose land use as per G-2 zone. The said factual report is reproduced below:
"dk;kZy; uxj fodkl izU;kl mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ Øekad%,Q-7¼ ½chIyku@fel@2021&22@2412 fnukad %09-12-2021 la;qDr "kklu lfpo izFke uxjh; fodkl foHkkx] t;iqj jktLFkkuA fo'k;& uxj fodkl izU;kl mn;iqj ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fLFkr jktLo xzke lhlkjek ds vkjkth la[;k 1897 jdck 0-8600 gSDVs;j Hkwfe dh fjlksVZ iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrj.k djus ckcr~A izlax&vkids foHkkx ds i= Øekad i-2¼70½ ufofo @ mn;iqj@2021@ t;iqj fnukad 22-10-2021 egksn;th] mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= ds Øe esa fuosnu gS fd vki }kjk izkFkhZ Jh ih;w'k ek: firk Jh "kkfUryky th ek: ls izkIr vH;kosnu esa of.kZr rF;kssa dks rF;kRed fVIi.kh pkgh xbZ tks fuEukuqlkj gS& 1- ;g fd mn;iqj "kgj dk ekLVj Iyku 2031 jkT; ls vuqeksnu mijkUr o'kZ 2013 esa ykxw fd;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd vuqeksfnr ekLVj Iyku 2031 dh fjiksVZ ds i`'B la[;k 65 ds fcUnq la[;k 562 esa xzhu {ks=&1 dks fuEukuqlkj ifjHkkf'kr fd;k gqvk gS& Þbl fo"ks'k {ks= esa unh] uky]s tyk"k; rFkk fiNkSyk Qrglkxj ,oa mn;lkxj rkykc dk ty Hkjko {ks= gS ts iw.kZ:i ls fuekZ.k fu'ks/k jgsxkA xzhu {ks=&1 ls vfHkizk; >hy ds Qqy Vsd ysoy {ks= ls 100 ehVj rd dk vij&LVªhe dk {ks= tks fd ekSds ij fjDr Ñf'k Hkwfe {ks= ls gSAß (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (25 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 3- ;g fd vuqeksfnr ekLVj Iyku 2031 ds izLrkfor Hkw&mi;ksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa Qrglkxj >hy ds if"pe fn"kk dh rjQ U;kl }kjk fodflr fd;k x;k jktho xka/kh ikdZ tks fd jkuh jksM uked lM+d ij fLFkr gSA mDr lM+d ekSds ij fodflr jktho xka/kh ikdZ ,ao Qrglkxj >hy s e/; fLFkr gksdj bUgsa vyx djrh gSA ,ao jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds pkjksa vksj xzhu {ks=&1 ,oa mlds i'pkr~ xzhu {ks=&2 n"kkZ;k x;k gSA 4- izkFkhZ dks vkosfnr Hkwfe oU; tho laj{k.k dh tkjh uohu vf/klwpuk fnukad 06-01-2020 ls bdks lsUlsfVo tksu ls ckgj fLFkr gSA 5- vkosfnr Hkwfe fu;af=r fuekZ.k {ks= ds tksu 2 esa fLFkr gSA ftlesa Hkwfe :ikUrj.k fu;eu Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu ,ao Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr jkT; ljdkj dh Lohd`fr ds mijkUr gh nh tk ldrh gSA 6- U;kl }kjk ty lalk/ku foHkkx }kjk Qrglkxj >hy dh vf/kdre Hkjko lhek nf"kZr djrs gq;s ekufp= izkIr gqvk] ftlesa nf"kZr Qrsglkxj >hy ds vf/kdre Hkjko {kerk ls izkFkhZ dks vkosfnr Hkwfe dh nwjh yxHkx 129 ehVj ls 150 ehVj izkIr gksrh gSA tks fd ekLVj Iyku esa mYysf[kr xzhu {ks=&1 dh 100 ehVj dh nwjh ls vf/kd gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYysf[kr gS fd ekLVj Iyku esa nf"kZr xzhu {ks=&1 >hyksa ds lkFk yxrk gqvk {ks= gS ijarq ;gka ij mDr nf"kZr xzhu {ks=&1 ekLVj Iyku esa nf"kZr jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds lgkjs gSA vr% mDr fLFkfr esa Qrglkxj >hy ds vf/kdre Hkjko {ks= ds i'pkr~ lM+d ,oa blds i'pkr~ jktho xka/kh ikdZ ,ao fQj izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe gSA tks fd >hy dh vf/kdre Hkjko {kerk ls yxHkx 129 ehVj ls 150 ehVj dh nwjh ij fLFkr gS ,ao ekLVj Iyku dh fjiksVZ ds fcUnw la[;k 5-6-2 esa xzhu {ks=&1 Qqy Vsad ysoy ls 100 ehVj rd dk vij LVªhe {ks= gS ftlls ekLVj Iyku dks fjiksVZ ,ao izLrkfor Hkw mi;ksx ekufp= esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA vr% mDr rF;ksa ds e/;sutj izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe Qrglkxj >hy esa yxrh gq;h ugha gksdj jktho xka/kh ikdZ ls yxrh gqbZ Hkwfe gS ftls mlds lehiLFk fLFkr mi;ksx xzhu {ks=&2 gsrq izLrkfor fd;s tkus gsrq ekxZn"kZu iznku djkosA"
10.3 In the meanwhile, objections/suggestions were sought qua the Zonal Development Plan through a public notice and accordingly, the petitioners raised their objection. The objections so raised were dealt in the meeting dated 28.10.2022 by UIT, wherein comments were recorded qua the objections raised by the petitioners. Therein too, it was stated that the land of petitioners falls within G-2 zone which is beyond 500 meter from FTL and (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (26 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] correction qua the same could be carried out only by the State Government in the master plan. The comments so recorded, read as below:
"izkFkhZ dh ekLVj Iyku&2013 esa Hkwfe th&1 FkhA izLrkfor tksuy Iyku esa Hkh th&1 gS ysfdu izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe Qrg lkxj >hy ls yxrh gqbZ ugha gksdj 100 ehVj ls vf/kd ¼yxHkx 500 ehVj½ nwj gSA ekLVj Iyku fjiksVZ esa xzhu {ks=&1 ¼th&1½ dk >hy FTL ls 100 ehVj rd nwjh ij n"kkZ;k tkuk ifjHkkf'kr fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe Qrglkxj FTL ls 100 ehVj ls vf/kd nwj fLFkr gksus ls bls gVk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; jkT; ljdkj ds Lrj gh vkisf{kr gSA"
10.4 Thereafter, in furtherance of decision taken on 28.10.2022, a communication was sent by UIT to State Government on 11.11.2022. It is noted that in the communication dated 11.11.2022, a reference has been made to meeting dated 28.10.2022 while stating that the information mentioned therein is in addition to the decision taken in meeting conducted on 28.10.2022. Vide the said communication dated 11.11.2022, UIT while referring to its earlier communication dated 19.06.2019, stated that the land is approximately 500 meter from FTL thus, it is only on account of a 'drafting error' that it has been reflected as G-1 zone in the map whereas according to the definition provided under the master plan, it does not fall within G-1 zone and accordingly sought permission from State Government to rectify the same at its own level. In reply thereto, the State Government vide communication dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure-AA/6) directed the UIT to comply with communication dated 11.01.2022. The communication dated 11.01.2022 so also 11.11.2022 are reproduced below for reference:
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (27 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] "jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx Øekad % i-2¼70½ufofo@mn;iqj@2021 t;iqj] fnukad % 11-01-2022 lfpo] uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqjA fo'k; % uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqj ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fLFkr jktLo xzke lhlkjke ds vkjkth la[;k 1697 jdck 8600 gSDVs;j Hkwfe dk fjlksVZ iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrj.k djus ckcrA lanHkZ % vkidk i=kad ,Q- 7()B.PLAN/MISC/2021-22/2412 fnukad 09-12-2021 ds Øe esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr vkids lanfHkZr i= ds Øe esa funsZ"kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd uxj fodkl U;kl] mn;iqj }kjk mn;iqj ekLVj Iyku&2031 ds vUrxZr tksuy MoyiesaV Iyku rS;kj fd;s tk jgs gSaA iz"uxr izdj.k esa ;fn U;kl ds vuqlkj ekLVj Iyku dh fjiksVZ ,oa Hkw&mi;ksx ekufp= esa fojks/kkHkkl dh fLFkfr cu jgh gS rks U;kl }kjk tksuy MoyiesaV Iyku esa bl =qVh dks nqjLr fd;k tkdj U;kl e.My dh cSBd esa izLrko ikfjr dj Hkw&mi;ksx ekufp= esa okafNr la"kks/ku izLrkfor dj jkT; ljdkj ds vuqeksnu gsrq izsf'kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA"
"dk;kZy; uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ Øekad % F-7()PLAN/MISC/2022/1500 fnukad 11-11-2022 la;qDr "kklu lfpo&izFke uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx jktLFkku ljdkj&t;iqjA fo'k; % mn;iqj ds ekLVj Iyku 2031 ds Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu Iyku 2031 ds uD"ks esa jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds ikl xyr vafdr Hkw&mi;ksx xzhu&1 dh Mªkf¶Vax ,jj dks nqjLr djus ckcr~A izlax % vkidk i= Øekad i-2¼70½ufofo@ mn;iqj@ 2021 fnukad 11-01-2020 ,oa lela[;d i=kad fnukad 12-07-2022 ds Øe esaA egksn; th] mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr izklafxd i= ds Øe esa U;kl dh lkekU; cSBd fnukad 28-10-2022 esa mDr izdj.k fu.khZr fd;k x;k gSA ftldh izfr layXu gSA lkFk gh mDr ds vfrfjDr izdj.k ls lacaf/kr fcUnqokj lwpuk,a fuEukuqlkj gSa& (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (28 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 1- Qrglkxj] lM+d] jktho xka/kh ikdZ o iz"uxr Hkwfe dks n"kkZrs gq, dUVwj eSi dh izfr layXu gSA 2- fiNys 40&50 o'kksZa dk vf/kdre Hkjko {ks=@Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= o mDr {ks= ls 100 ehVj dh nwjh dks vafdr djrk gqvk ekufp= layXu gSA 3- uxj fodkl izU;kl us flapkbZ foHkkx dh fjiksVZ izkIr dh gS] tks muds i= fnukad 08-06-2022 ls izkIr gqbZ gS] dh izfr layXu gSA 4- fo'k;kafdr izdj.k esa uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqj }kjk viuh foLr`r fVIi.kh jkT; ljdkj dks i= fnukad 19-06-2019 ds ek/;e ls izsf'kr dh Fkh] ftlesa Li'V rkSj ij jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds rhuksa rjQ ekLVj Iyku 2031 ds izLrkfor Hkw&mi;ksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa xzhu {ks=&1 dks xzhu {ks=&2 n"kkZus dk la"kks/ku pkgk Fkk] D;ksafd ;g {ks= vf/kdre Hkjko {ks=@Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= ls yxHkx 500 ehVj dh nwjh ij fLFkr gksdj] fdlh Hkh izdkj ls xzhu {ks=&1 ugha gksdj dsoy ek= Mªkf¶Vax ,jj ls ekLVj Iyku ekufp= esa xzhu {ks=&1 vafdr gks x;k gSA ekLVj Iyku esa tks xzhu {ks=&1 dh ifjHkk'kk nh xbZ gS] ml vuqlkj mDr {ks= xzhu {ks=&1 esa ugh vkrk gS] bl izdkj ;g dsoy ek= Mªkf¶Vax ,jj gS] ftls nqjLr fd;k tkuk vko";d gSA 5- bl laca/k esa U;kl dk Li'V er gS fd iz"uxr {ks= dk Hkw&mi;ksx Mªkf¶Vax ,jj ls xzhu {ks=&1 vafdr gks x;k gS] tcfd ;g {ks= xzhu {ks=&2 gksdj U;kl us bl laca/k esa foLr`r fjiksVZ U;kl i= fnukad 19-06-2019 ds ek/;e ls fHktokbZ Fkh] mlh Øe esa pkgh xbZ lwpuk,a izsf'kr dj fuosnu gS fd izdj.k esa ekLVj Iyku esa la"kks/ku fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku djkosa] rkfd U;kl ds Lrj ij la"kks/ku fd;k tk ldsA vr% pkgh xbZ lwpuk;s layXu dj izsf'kr gSA layXu %& mijksDrkuqlkj "
10.5 A perusal of communication dated 11.01.2022 reflects that it was directed by the State Government that in case there is a discrepancy in the master plan, the same could be rectified by UIT in the zonal plan and a resolution suggesting amendment / modification in the master plan could be passed and be forwarded to the State Government.
10.6 It can be safely inferred from a comprehensive consideration of the above series of communications that UIT maintained its stand qua the distance of petitioners land from the Fateh Sagar Lake being beyond 100 meter from FTL so also the (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (29 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] correction sought by the petitioners. In the meeting dated 28.10.2022, it proceeded to state that the distance of petitioners' land is 500 meter from the FTL although in the factual report dated 09.12.2021 the same is stated to be 129 meter to 150 meter from FTL. Be that as it may.
10.7 It is to be noted that the factual report dated 09.12.2021, wherein the UIT stated about the position on site with respect to petitioners land, has neither been challenged nor labelled as incorrect, either by UIT or the State Government. Moreover, no malafides have been alleged on part of UIT while preparing report dated 19.06.2019 and 09.12.2021 so also while transmitting communication dated 11.11.2022. This Court also raised a specific query to learned counsel for the respondents regarding distance of the petitioners' land from the lake to which Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned AAG responded, it being 129 meter. Meaning thereby, there is no dispute regarding the land of petitioners being beyond the distance prescribed for G-1 zone i.e. 100 meter from FTL thus, the first condition as prescribed under Clause 5.6.2 of the Master Plan is not satisfied. Therefore, this Court now has to consider whether the land of petitioners' falls within G-1 zone on account of any notification published by the State Government or has been declared so by judgment of any Court.
11. As far as notification of the State Government is concerned, no notification has been placed on record to suggest that the land of petitioners fall within ambit of G-1 zone. However, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the order dated 05.09.2000 passed in the case of Rajendra Kumar (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (30 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Razdan (supra) wherein while discussing about 'No construction zone' it has been mentioned that vide notification dated 17.01.1997 no construction zone was declared around the lakes in Udaipur. The said notification was superseded by notification dated 10.12.1999 and new bye laws were issued under the same. It is submitted that in light of the said order, distance of 200 meter from the lake is declared to be 'no construction zone' therefore, the land of petitioners falling within 200 meter from FTL, cannot be classified as G-2 zone in order to develop a resort. While rebutting the said submission of the respondents, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the said order, is in fact, an interim order and the direction so referred has not been included in the final order passed in the case on 06.02.2007 wherein specific directions have been issued by this Court in Para 28 of the order.
The relevant portion of the order dated 05.09.2000 so also 06.02.2007 passed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Razdan (supra) is reproduced herein-below:
Order dated 05.09.2000 "29. It is not a dispute that Udaipur lakes are facing environmental problems, siltatioin and also shrinkage in its area, as such, State Government with a view to protect the air in the city of Udaipur from further pollution, issued a notification dated 17.1.97 declaring No Construction Zone around the lakes. Later on certain difficulties were felt and, as such, a decision was taken to frame the Building Construction Bye-laws in the said restricted zone. Accordingly, superseding the earlier notification dated 17.1.97, new Bye-laws under the notification dated 10.12.99 have been issued. It is submitted that some of the areas like Raoji Ka Hatta, Bhatiyani Chouhatta, Clock Tower Area and Hathipur etc. which are neither attached nor related to the lake system have been wrongly included in the said notification. It is also submitted that sewage of these areas are not going into the lake system as these areas are on the out skirts of the lake. It is prayed that said area may be excluded from the notification. It is also prayed that in sub-para (vii), instead of notification dated 10.1.97, reference be made to only notification dated 10.12.99. Per Contra, it is submitted by Mr. Rajdan that inspite of directions of this (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (31 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Court that declaration of "No Construction Zone", day in and day out the constructions are being raised in No Construction Zone. It is also submitted that in the garb of bye-laws of 1999, UIT has permitted or deliberately ignored raising of construction in No Construction Zone. It need be re-emphasized that Udaipur Lake System is one of National Lakes Conversion Plan as declared by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. The Central Government has ambitious plan for such National Lakes.
However, Central Government has made it clear that a pre-condition to take up Udaipur lakes under the said plan is that the State Government should give free environmental status of area within 200 mt. Of the high flood level of the lakes, so a further deterioration does not take place. It has been emphasized that 200 mt. Zone around the lake may be declared as "No Construction zone".
As far as area referred to above is concerned, to exclude from No Construction Zone, that cannot be any objection. However, we feel that if the Construction in the area is not strictly controlled, efforts made in this writ petition will become futile." Order dated 06.02.2007 "28. Consequently, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
i. We direct the State Government to consider for establishing the Lakes Development Authority under a Statute for effective management in conservation of the City Lakes of Udaipur. The authority should be made responsible and accountable for ecological, hydrological and limnological balance of the lakes concerned; ii. Effective steps should be taken so as not to permit any sort of construction within the No Construction Zone; iii. Desiltation of lakes should be taken as a continuous programme; iv. The conversion and construction permission in and around the lakes and in their respective catchment areas is completely banned except the rarest of rare exceptional case keeping in view the earlier orders of this Court;
v. The catchment areas of the lakes as specified by the Committee be earmarked;
vi. Submerged peta land of the lakes be earmarked by the Revenue Department and it must be further ensured that no human activities are carried-on in the said area;
vii. All the directions given by this Court in the instant petition are made absolute and they shall be complied with positively, faithfully and religiously; and vii. Petitioners Rajendra Kumar Razdan and Dr. Tej Razdan will be inducted as permanent members of the Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti.
The Committee will also seek support and advice from the senior citizens of the City of Udaipur. We would particularly refer to Shri Jagat Mehta, Former Foreign Secretary, the Government of India."
11.1 A perusal of the above quoted observations and directions reflects that no specific direction has been passed to maintain a distance of 200 meter from FTL to declare 'no construction zone'.
The observation made in the order dated 05.09.2000 which has (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (32 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is in fact, a submission made before the Court and has not either been recorded as direction in the said order or the final order passed on 06.02.2007. It is also pertinent to note here that no notification has been produced before this Court to substantiate the claim that it is indeed 200 meter from FTL which is classified as Green Zone- 1, rather the definition provided under Clause 5.6.2 of the Master Plan so prepared has not been disputed wherein, as observed above, a radius of 100 meter has been stated to be G-1 Zone. Moreover, the said judgment was very well available when the Master Plan was prepared and if any direction as alleged by counsel for the respondents was passed then instead of 100 meter mentioned in Clause 5.6.2, the distance ought to be mentioned as 200 meter.
11.2 The notification dated 10.12.1999 referred in the judgment passed in the case of Rajendra Kumar Razdan (supra) was produced before the Court by learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal and it is noted that therein too, the Khasra No. of land belonging to petitioners has not been specified to be included under 'no construction zone'. Further, it has neither been alleged in the reply, recalling application or additional affidavit that the said notification was superseded by any other notification or amended/modified by the State Government therefore, in absence of the same, the said judgment so also the notification dated 10.12.1999 referred therein does not support the stand of respondents to include the land of petitioners in G-1 zone.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (33 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Hence, the only consideration remaining is judgments passed by the Court to examine as to whether land of petitioners falls within ambit of G-1 zone.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the order dated 12.01.2017 passed in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) wherein various directions were passed by the Court regarding Zonal Plans so also Master Plan. The relevant directions as passed by the Court are reproduced hereinbelow:
"204. In the result, having regard to the aforesaid conclusions arrived at, we issue the following directions:
(i) The Development Authorities and the State Government shall ensure that Master Development Plan of a city or town prepared under the relevant statutes is a comprehensive and self explanatory document providing for preservation, conservation and development of eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, peripheral control belt, natural scenery, city forest, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping as also allocation of land for different uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural complexes, tourist complexes, open spaces, garden, recreation centres, amusement parks, zoological gardens, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts etc.
(ii) Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or immediately thereafter as contemplated by Section 4 of the UIT Act and Section 22 of the Act No. 25 of 1982 and other relevant statutes, the authority concerned shall proceed with the preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone clearly specifying the location and extent of the land uses proposed in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, parks, industry, business, markets, schools, public and private open spaces etc.
(iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all development schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be.
(iv) Once the Master Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant implementation thereof shall be the rule and any deviation therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with the authority or the State Government for modification thereof during its operative period shall be exercised sparingly in larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to sub-serve interest of an individual.
(v) The eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area specified in the Master Development Plan once established shall not be altered or put (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (34 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] to other uses during the operative period of the Plan and even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or preparation of the new Plan.
(vi) Even the area which is shown in the various Master Development Plans as Green Zone/Green Area marked as G-2 abutting G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 shall not be permitted to be used for the activities other than those specified, unless and until, the State Government after objective consideration arrives at a categorical conclusion that the public interest involved in diversion of the land for other use outweighs the object sought to be achieved in permitting its restrictive use specified. In any case, change of the land use of the Green Zone/Green Area (G2) shall be as an exception to serve the larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to subserve the interest of an individual.
(vii) During the operative period of the Master Development Plan, the land use in the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified shall not be generally permitted. But if the change of the land use in the peripheral control belt is considered inevitable in the larger public interest and not to serve the interest of an individual, the change of the land use for the activities other than those specified, should only be permitted to subserve the legislative intent of planned development for promotion and enhancement of the quality of life of the citizens and not otherwise."
12.1 A perusal of the above-quoted directions reveals that green area specified in the Master Plan shall not be altered, even while preparing successive plans and if any change has to be carried out then it shall be in larger public interest only and not to sub-serve interest of an individual. Learned counsel for the respondents contended, while relying on above-quoted order passed in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra), no change/modification can be carried out in the Master Plan as the hands of the respondents are tied due to the observations made above. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are not seeking 'change' in the Master Plan rather are getting support from the Clause 5.6.2 of the Master Plan itself while seeking to rectify the 'drafting error' apparent in the proposed land use map of the Master Plan. Learned Senior counsel further relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (35 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Ultratech Cement (supra) which was upheld by the Apex Court, wherein land was recorded as 'johad' whereas on actual site of the land in question therein, it was not 'johad', thus, it was observed that correction could be carried out in such circumstances. Reliance was placed on the said judgment to submit that when there is a factual error in the map annexed to the Master Plan then the observations made in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) would not come in way of the petitioners. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in the case of M/s. IMI Norgren Heroin (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been observed by the Allahabad High Court that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 entails inherent power to amend or vary a notification which has been issued by the State Government. In light of the same, it has been submitted that there is no restriction on State Government to amend the Master Plan issued by it, if any error or mistake is brought to its notice. 12.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on judgments passed in the case of B.S. Sandhu (supra) wherein entire village was declared as forest land and matter was remanded back to the High Court by the Apex Court while observing that High Court ought to have considered Article 300-A of the Constitution so also the government record instead of solely relying on the legislation. Learned Senior counsel while relying upon the said rendition of the Apex Court submitted that had the incorrect inclusion under G-1 zone in the map not been made, the present petitioners could have got approval to use the land for purposes, specifically hotel/resort, stated in Clause 5.6.3 of the (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (36 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Master Plan and their right under Article 300-A of the Constitution would not have been hampered. Reliance has been placed on E.I.H. Limited (supra) to highlight the importance of hotels in Udaipur. It is noted that the said judgment in E.I.H. Limited (supra) is not relevant for adjudication of present case as the issue in the present matters does not revolve around construction of hotel/resort by the petitioners.
12.3 A perusal of the judgments cited by both the parties reflects that no change can be carried out in the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan except in exceptional circumstances. 12.4 This Court is of the opinion that there is no dispute qua the petitioners' land being beyond 100 meter from FTL of the lake as observed in preceding paras. Further, the respondents have not been able to showcase any judgment or notification that land of petitioners is falling under G-1 zone thus, there is no material on record to suggest contrary to the factum of land of petitioners falling under G-2 zone as per the definition provided under the Master Plan.
13. It is noted that after order dated 22.08.2024 was passed by this Court directing to issue the amended/modified Zonal Development Plan, as noted in preceding paras, time was sought on numerous occasions by learned counsel for the UDA, however, instead of complying with the order passed on 22.08.2024, in April 2025 i.e. after a period of approximately eight months the order been passed, applications came to be filed seeking recalling of the said order dated 22.08.2024. Further, in May 2025, an Additional (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (37 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Affidavit came to be filed by UDA (UIT) in addition to the recalling application.
13.1 It is noted that in the additional affidavit, a strong reliance has been placed on communication dated 16.09.2022 to contend that the land of petitioners falls within G-1 zone and has been rightly so reflected in the proposed land use map. It is submitted that the land of the petitioners has not been included within the ambit of G-2 zone vide the said communication and thus the same being leftover land, it would definitely fall under G-1 zone as per Para 2 of the said communication.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the State in the reply too, that surrounding area of the Rajeev Gandhi Park would be covered under G-1 zone as per the said communication. It has also been stated in para 4 of the reply filed by the State that the amended master plan was notified after considering objections of petitioner so also other similarly situated persons and keeping into consideration the Zonal Development Plan. It is contended on behalf of respondents that the petitioners have neither challenged the communication dated 16.09.2022 nor the amended/modified Master Plan as notified on 27.12.2022 and in absence thereof, they cannot seek the relief as sought in the present writ petition. 13.2 It is noted that the petitioners had sought compliance of the notification dated 27.12.2022 and thus, order dated 22.08.2024 came to be passed against which recalling application has been filed. Since the order dated 22.08.2024 was passed in view of the notification dated 27.12.2022, this Court directed to file affidavit of the then Principal Secretary - Kunji Lal Meena (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (38 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] indicating as to whether while issuing the notification dated 27.12.2022, wherein reference was made to the minutes of the meeting dated 28.10.2022 of UIT, the modifications suggested therein in relation to the petitioners' land were also taken into consideration or not.
13.3 Consequently, Kunji Lal Meena filed additional affidavit on 03.07.2025 whereby he denied consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners to the Zonal Development Plan while issuing the notification dated 27.12.2022 and has also stated that the said notification is not related with the said objections so raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the statements of Kunji Lal Meena in the additional affidavit, submitted that the same are contrary to the noting made qua meeting held by the State Government before the notification dated 27.12.2022 was issued. Therefore, the same ought not be considered by this Court. Alternatively, reliance was placed on rendition made in the case of Municipal Corporation for City of Pune (supra) to argue that even if the noting qua meeting are contrary to the notification dated 27.12.2022, the noting cannot be considered to obliterate the said notification. 13.4 It is noted that on one hand, in the reply filed on behalf of the State it has been submitted that the objections of the petitioners were considered while publishing the amended / modified master plan whereas on the other hand, the then Secretary has denied consideration and relevance of the said objections in his affidavit. In Additional Affidavit too, filed in addition to the recalling application, in para 2 it has been stated (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (39 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] that the objections of the petitioners considered in the meeting dated 28.10.2022 are not covered in the Notification dated 27.12.2022. Further reliance has been placed on note-sheet of meeting conducted by the State Authorities to argue that the petitioners' objection was required to be redressed in light of communication dated 11.01.2022. Thereafter, a communication dated 28.11.2022 was sent by the State Government stating that qua the objections raised by the petitioners, earlier directions had been issued vide communication dated 11.01.2022 and that the said objections relate to drafting error and not communication dated 16.09.2022.
13.5 Upon a perusal of the communications mentioned in the immediate preceding para, this Court is of the opinion that the objection so raised by the petitioners has been considered in the meeting dated 28.10.2022 so also while issuing the Notification dated 27.12.2022, however, the only outcome of the consideration of said objection is that communication dated 11.01.2022 was needed to be complied with. It is pertinent to note that the UIT has assigned no reason, whatsoever, as to why compliance has not been made with the said communication when it has been specifically admitted in the Additional Affidavit that objections/suggestions have not been proceeded with in accordance with the communication dated 11.01.2022. Once it was communicated to UIT by the State Government that it could carry out necessary correction in the Zonal Plan and thereafter it also received specific objection from the petitioner to the Zonal Development Plan, then it was incumbent upon the UIT to carry (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (40 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] out the necessary modification/correction in the Zonal Plan and pass the resolution as indicated in the communication dated 11.01.2022. True it is that the UIT could not carry out modification in the proposed land use map of the Master Plan however, the initial step to initiate correction/modification in the map was required from the UIT by passing a resolution to the said effect and communicating the same to the State Government so also carrying out the necessary correction in the Zonal Development Plan. Therefore, the contention of UIT that it did not have the authority to carry out correction in view of the order dated 22.08.2024 does not hold water.
It is also pertinent to note here that after order dated 22.08.2024 was passed whereby direction was given by this Court to the competent authority of the respondents to issue modified / amended Zonal Development Plan in compliance of the Notification dated 27.12.2022, learned counsel for UIT/UDA had sought time to comply with the same as noted in initial paras of this Order. On 27.01.2025 and 03.03.2025, it was specifically submitted that the respondents are at verge of completing the process for issuing amended/modified Zonal Development Plan and that the said Plan is almost ready however, in the month of April 2025, recalling application came to be filed against the order dated 22.08.2024 by taking a complete U-turn from previous submissions and conduct before this Court. Thus, from this conduct of respondent too, it can be inferred that earlier UDA/UIT was supporting the stand of petitioners however, at later stage, for the reasons best known to them, filed the recalling application.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (41 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] 13.6 So far as aforementioned communication dated 16.09.2022 is concerned, it is noted that the public notice seeking objections/suggestions in the Zonal Development Plan was published only after receipt of said communication dated 16.09.2022 and the same was very well available before UIT while deciding the objections raised by the petitioners, which is fortified from minutes of meeting dated 28.10.2022 wherein apart from referring to communication dated 16.09.2022, it has also been reproduced. Thus, stand of UIT before this Court that in view of communication dated 16.09.2022 the land of petitioners is not covered under G-2 zone is incomprehensible as the said communication was also present for consideration when the suggestion to correct the 'drafting error' vide communication dated 11.11.2022 was made so also while recording comments in meeting dated 28.10.2022 for deciding objections raised by the petitioners. Moreover, a bare perusal of communication dated 26.09.2022 reflects that the portion upon which the reliance has been placed to argue that the land falls within G-1 zone is completely misplaced as the Para 2 of communication dated 26.09.2022 states that any partial/leftover land falling under G-1 zone after demarcating lake area and lake protected area in Zonal Development Plan, be reflected as G-1 zone only as per the Master Plan. This communication does not, in many manner, help the respondents as prior to the said communication so also subsequent thereto, UIT has maintained its stand with regard to making modification/amendment qua the petitioners' land. Furthermore, it is only through the recalling application that this (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (42 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] contention has been raised before this Court by UIT whereas the said communication was available since the inception of this litigation.
14. True it is that private interest shall not take precedence of public interest, however, it is pertinent to note here that the petitioners have not approached this Court against conversion of the land rather are only seeking correction in the map annexed to the Master Plan and are drawing support from the definition provided under the Master Plan itself. The respondents have argued that the petitioners are seeking conversion of their land from G-1 zone to G-2 zone whereas the contention of the petitioners is that their land already falls under G-2 zone however, has incorrectly been included under G-1 zone in the map annexed to the Master Plan. The conduct of the authorities is not appreciable because UIT has time and again, as discussed above, supported the petitioners' stand with respect to incorrect inclusion of their land in G-1 zone and even admitted before this Court to carry out the correction in Zonal Development Plan, however, at a later stage have changed their stance to contest that the correction cannot be carried out. The first report of UIT was prepared in the year 2019 and subsequent thereto, till the year 2022 it maintained its stand and even sought permission from State Government to carry out necessary amendment. Moreover, before this Court too, it proceeded to carry out changes in the Zonal Development Plan and it is only while filing the recalling application that it changed its stand to submit that the land of petitioners cannot be included under G-1 zone.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (43 of 44) [CW-4675/2023]
15. So far as the stand of State Government is concerned, it had itself directed the UIT to carry out necessary corrections and has repeatedly directed to comply with communication dated 11.01.2022 and it has not disputed the fact that the land of petitioners falls beyond 100 meter from FTL of Fatehsagar Lake.
16. In view of the discussion made above it is established that land belonging to petitioners (SB CWP No.18007/2022) falls under G-2 zone, therefore, the SB CWP No. 18007/2022 is allowed with a direction to the State Government to carry out necessary correction in land use map of the Master Plan-2031 of Udaipur qua the land belonging to petitioners within a period of one month from today. Consequently, necessary corrections be carried out in the Zonal Development Plan as well.
17. So far as SB CWP No. 4675/2023 is concerned, the only contention raised is that the petitioner's land is even beyond the land of petitioners in SB CWP No.18007/2022, however, no document has been placed on record substantiating the said fact therefore, in absence of the same, no ground denying the said fact has been mentioned in the reply by respondents. Accordingly, SB CWP No.4675/2023 is disposed of with direction that UDA (the then UIT) shall inspect the distance of the petitioner's land from FTL of Fatehsagar lake within a period of one month from today and if the same is beyond the radius of G-1 zone so also is not prevented by any other notification or judgment of Court (except the decisions dealt with vide this order) then, UDA shall send a report to State Government qua the same within a period of 15 days from the date of inspection. Thereafter, the State (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (44 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] Government considering the report of UDA shall carry out necessary correction, if needed, in land use map of the Master Plan-2031 of Udaipur qua the land belonging to petitioners within a period of one month from receipt of said report from UDA. Consequently, necessary corrections be carried out in the Zonal Development Plan as well, if necessary.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 02:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 09:01:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)