Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (1 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9997/2024
M/s Supertech Properties Pvt. Ltd., having its registered
address behind Super Sales Corporation, Jal Chakki, Kankroli,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan, through its Authorized
Representative Naresh Chandel S/o Shri Giriraj Chandel, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Jal Chakki, Kankrolim District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through lits
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9988/2024
Ashok Kumawat S/o Dharam Narayan Kumawat, Aged About
61 Years, R/o 221, Dharmraj Sadan, Diamond Colony,
Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development And Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through ots
Secretary
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10016/2024
1. Smt. Surbhi Bhandari W/o Shri Harit Bhandari, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 16, Flora Modern Complex, Bhuwana,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (2 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
2. Smt. Rupal Bhandari W/o Shri Kalit Bhandari, Aged About
56 Years, R/o House No. 31, Near Hotel Lakend, Alkapuri,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, through its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10017/2024
Mahendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Hukam Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Surya Niwas, 6-7, Shekhawat Marg, Modern
Complex, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10065/2024
Smt. Snehlata Bansal W/o Shri Anant Kumar Agarwal, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o 92-A, Jagat Mehta Ki Bari, Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (3 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10054/2024
1. Pradeep Lunawat S/o Shri Mangi Lal Lunawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o B-132, Aravali Minerals And
Chemicals, M.I.A., Madri, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Vijayshree Lunawat W/o Shri Pradeep Lunawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o L3/53, Jai Shree Colony, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Anushree Lunawat W/o Shri Sunil Lunawat, Aged About
47 Years, R/o L 3/53, Jaishree Colony, Dhoolkot,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chandra Vajawat W/o Shri Rakesh Vajawat, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 47, Gokul Nagar, Near Bohra Ji Ganesh
Temple, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sneha Vajawat D/o Shri Rakesh Vajawat, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 47, Gokul Nagar, Near Bohra Ji Ganesh
Temple, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur Through Its
Secretary.
3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10074/2024
1. Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Shanti Lal Maroo, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o 13-14, Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Geeta Agarwal W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o 19-C, Opposite Tirveni
Hospital, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (4 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10049/2024
Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Shanti Lal Maroo, Aged About 67
Years, R/o 13-14, Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10047/2024
Smt. Geeta Agarwal W/o Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Aged About
64 Years, R/o 19-C, Opposite Triveni Hospital, Old Fatehpura,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur through its
Secretary.
2. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr.Samyak Dalal, Adv.
Mr.J.S.Saluja, Adv.
Mr.Vedant Agrwal, Adv.
Mr.Pranjul Mehta, Adv.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (5 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vijay Purohit, Adv.
Mr.Ayush Gehlot for
Mr.Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Mr.Shubham Ojha, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment Judgment Reserved on : 26/05/2025 (CWP No.10054/2025 was reserved on 10/07/2025) Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025
1. This order disposes of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9997/2024, 9988/2024, 10016/2024, 10017/2024, 10065/2024, 10054/2024, 10074/2024, 10049/2024 and 10047/2024.
2. The challenge in the above writ petitions pertains to orders dated 29.05.29024 passed by the Udaipur Development Authority, whereby layout approval dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023 and consequential allotments and execution of lease-deeds in favour of the writ petitioners have been cancelled.
3. In addition to the above reliefs, the petitioners have also challenged the directions issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, vide letter dated 19.03.2025, to the Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority. These directions included instructions to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of the layout plans and the consequential cancellation of allotments and lease deeds, along with several other directives. Further, the petitioners have also challenged the communication dated 24.02.2025 issued by the Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, whereby the lease deeds were kept in (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (6 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] abeyance and prohibitory orders were issued, restraining transfer, sub-division, amalgamation, mutation, change of use, grant of building permissions, and further construction. Additionally, the petitioners have challenged the communications dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025, which were issued in compliance with the letter dated 19.03.2025.
4. The facts in all the writ petitions are almost common and are referred to hereinafter for the disposal of the aforementioned two writ petitions. The writ petitioners are the owners of khatedari lands. The agricultural lands were converted into non-agricultural land under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the RLR Act, 1956") by orders passed in the year 2007-2008. The layout plans were approved by the Urban Improvement Trust of Udaipur. The approved layout plans were prepared large plot-wise for group housing purposes. During the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021-2023, the petitioners made applications for approval of fresh demarcated plans demarcating large plots into small group housing plots. The said demarcated plans were approved by the Layout Plan Committee, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023. Subsequently, the allotment letters were issued and lease deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners.
5. An audit was conducted by the Local Fund Authority for the years 2022-2024, and in the audit, the authorities found various contraventions and financial irregularities. The objections were noted by them, and the Udaipur Development Authority, which was constituted under the provisions of the Udaipur (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (7 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] Development Authority Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2023"), was directed to respond to the objections.
6. In compliance with the objections raised by the Local Fund Authority, the Secretary of the Udaipur Development Authority issued various interim directions, including the suspension of the layout plans and lease deeds, along with several other related orders. Meanwhile, the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Rajasthan, issued a letter dated 19.03.2025 directing the Udaipur Development Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the authorities who had approved the layout plans and issued the allotments and lease deeds. The Udaipur Development Authority was also directed to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of the layout, allotments, and execution of lease deeds. Further directions were issued to inform the Regional Authority not to permit any construction activities and to communicate the proposed actions to the District Collector. In addition to issuing a general public notice warning the general public, the Udaipur Development Authority also initiated proceedings for cancellation of the layouts by referring the matter to its Layout Plan Committee.
7. The Udaipur Development Authority passed its decision dated 29.05.2024 cancelling the approval of demarcated map and consequently allotment letters and execution of sale-deeds were kept in abeyance and notices for cancellation of allotment and lease deed were issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (8 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
8. The cancellation of the layout plan, allotments, and execution of the lease deeds were primarily based on the ground of sub-division of the originally approved large group housing plots into smaller group housing plots. Subsequently, approved layout plans for group housing were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1975") and the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2010. The second ground cited was that as per the prevailing policy, the ratio of saleable area to facility area must be 60:40, whereas the ratio of the saleable area indicated in the demarcated plans are over and above prescribed ratio allowing such a saleable area over and above the ratio are contrary to the Township Policy, 2010. The third ground was the absence of any provision in the approved plan for EWS/LIG plots, which are required to be included in accordance with the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan. The fourth ground was that the sub- division of an existing single plot having an area of more than 3000 Sq. Mtrs. cannot be permitted without the sanction of the State Government. The last ground was that one of the Khatedars, who had a joint interest in the subject land, had complained about the layout plan, and the layouts were approved in respect of lands that were not partitioned among the co-owners, which is contrary to the Regulations.
9. There are other prayers in the present writ petitions and they relate to the challenges against various interim orders passed by the Udaipur Development Authority and they have lost their (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (9 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] significance due to the passing of final order cancelling the layout thereby interim orders were merged with final orders. As such adjudication on the validity of such interim orders is now unwarranted.
10. The case of the respondents is that the present writ petitions are not maintainable, and the existing approved layout plans prepared plot-wise for group housing purposes was contrary to various provisions of buildings laws, the Township Policy, 2010, and the Rules of 1975. Such approvals were the result of misrepresentation of facts, collusion, and contravention of the above-mentioned statutory provisions.
11. It is also pleaded that the invalid approval and the consequential allotments and issuance of lease deeds caused financial losses amounting to crores of rupees. The further case of the respondents is that, in pursuant to audit objections, an internal enquiry was conducted. Such an enquiry report is not required to be furnished to the petitioners as it was an internal administrative exercise, and the petitioners have no right to participate in it.
12. The respondents also justified the invocation of powers under Section 52 of the Act of 2023 read with Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act 1955. Section 52 of the Act of 2023 enables the respondents to cancel layout plan, allotments and lease deeds if they were obtained through misrepresentation of facts or collusion, or if such approvals were granted in contravention of law. The impugned orders, according to the (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (10 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] respondents, were passed with due application of mind in the backdrop of prevailing circumstances, and the writ petitions are therefore misconceived; and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels on record for both the petitioners and the respondents.
14. The only issue before this Court in the present writ petitions is whether the impugned orders dated 29.05.2024, whereby the layout approval granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 2023 were cancelled, are sustainable in law, both on merits and in light of the relevant statutory provisions.
15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders of cancellation of the layout plans are liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the requirement of Section 52 of the Act of 2023 are not satisfied. The above statutory provisions mandate the issuance of a show-cause notice incorporating the grounds on which such action is proposed. In the present case, no such notice was issued. Thus, ex facie, the order is unsustainable in the eye of law.
15.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 52 of the Act of 2023 is applicable only to cases involving the cancellation of allotments and pattas, and does not extend to the revocation of layout plans approved by the Layout Plan Committee. According to him, the powers exercised by the Layout Approval Committee in cancelling a previously approved layout plan are without jurisdiction. Allowing such a (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (11 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] power to be exercised would amount to a review of its earlier decision, which can only be undertaken with statutory back up, which is absent in this case.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the grounds on which the impugned orders of cancellation of the layout, allotment, and lease deeds were passed are unsustainable in light of various statutory provisions and the orders of the State Government issued from time to time. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have misunderstood the provisions of the Rules of 1975 in dealing with the sub-division and reconstitution of the existing single plot for group housing. The learned Senior Counsel, while referring to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975, contended that the requirement to obtain sanction of the State Government would arise in cases where the approval is to be accorded for a residential plot if it is larger than 1500/3000 Sq. Yds. Such approval is not required when the intended plot size is below 1500/3000 Sq. Yds. The divided plots were of 750 Sq. yards, which cannot be said to be larger than the prescribed area so as to require approval of the State Government.
17. It is also his submission that the demarcation of the plan was made based on the policy adopted by the State Government during the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, as per the Government order dated 20.09.2021. He also submitted that a minimum plot area of 750 Sq. yards. was required to be maintained as per the Building Regulations, and since the plot (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (12 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] does not exceed 1500/3000 Sq. Yds., it cannot be said that the sanction of the State Government is required.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also contended that the 60:40 ratio is not applicable to the cases where the layout plan was approved for group housing or flats development. For group housing, the saleable area can also be 100%. The ratio of 60:40 is maintained only in cases of individual development of plots for independent residential units. The learned counsel to support his contention also relied upon Circular dated 25.02.2009, more particularly Clause 11 of the said Circular, which specifically excludes the applicability of 60% and 40% ratio for group housing.
19. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the requirement of providing 5% of the saleable area for EWS/LIG as per the Policy of 2010 has been relaxed. Instead of including a specific clause for the EWS/LIG category, a provision was made under the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) Shelter Fund, whereby the developer can pay the charges as determined in lieu of reserving such an area. This condition was further relaxed by virtue of the proceedings dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure 22), which neither require reserving 5% of the saleable area for EWS/LIG nor the payment of charges, in view of the relaxation of this condition.
20. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the complaints of khatedari holders have not been brought to the notice of the petitioners. If really any khaedari holders had any interest over the subject land, they could have challenged the (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (13 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] conversions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which was granted in the year 2007-2008. The silence of such khatedari holders indicates that they, in fact, have no grievance, and the interests of the petitioners were segregated long ago. These complaints appear to be motivated by an attempt to settle scores or to influence the process improperly.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the audit report and enquiry report, which form the foundation for initiating the entire action against the petitioners, were not furnished to the petitioners, and therefore, any findings therein cannot be used to justify the initiation of the action and they cannot be basis for any findings. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
22. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the Udaipur Development Authority, the State, as well as the intervenor, submitted that the Local Fund Auditors conducted the audit for the financial years 2022-2024. They found numerous financial irregularities that caused losses amounting to crores to the Udaipur Development Authority. Based on these financial irregularities, the State Government directed the Udaipur Development Authority to take disciplinary action as well as initiate proceedings for the cancellation of such regularization, issuance of allotments, and execution of lease deeds. Such actions cannot be said to be assailable.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the intervenors submitted that the sub-division and reconstitution (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (14 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] of plots must be in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules of 1975. Rule 12 of the said Rules requires that when a larger plot exceeding 3000 Sq. Yds. is to be made or reconstituted, it can be done only with the prior approval of the State Government. In the present case, there was no approval for the sub-division and reconstitution of the single plot. As such, on this ground alone, the impugned orders require no interference.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the intervenors further contended that the Township Policy, 2010 requires that the ratio of saleable area to facility area must be 60:40. However, the petitioners, by way of the revised demarcation plan, allowed the saleable area to exceed more than 80%. Allowing such a high saleable area is contrary to the Rules and Regulations governing the approval of layouts.
25. The learned counsels for respondents also submitted that the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan scheme, introduced in 2015, requires provision of 5% of the layout area for EWS/LIG, which was not made in the approved layout. Thus, the grounds for cancelling the approved layout are justifiable in the context of the violation of these requirements.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the intervenors also submitted that the revenue records show that the petitioners are not the exclusive owners of the khasara numbers in question, and that there are multiple owners. When land is owned and possessed by multiple owners, partition of the owners' interests is required to be produced before the (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (15 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] authorities. In the present case, without any such partition among the co-owners, the approval of the layout was obtained. The complaints regarding khatedari rights were part of the decision- making process, and the said khatedars were not allotted any land or lease deeds. Thus, on this ground as well, the authorities rightly set aside the approved demarcated plan.
27. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record. In the backdrop of the above contentions, this Court requires to decide whether the order impugned requires any interference.
28. The undisputed facts on record show that the petitioners are owners of khatedari lands of the khasara numbers in issue. They obtained conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use in terms of Section 90 of the RLR Act, 1956. Such conversion was obtained in the year 2007. The layouts were also approved for group housing development in the year 2007. The Government also accorded permission for the allotment of government land in 2010.
29. The controversy in these writ petitions is confined to the approval of the plan and the issuance of allotments and execution of lease deeds in favour of persons having an interest in the land upon regularization change of land use under Section 90A of the RLR Act, 1956. The impugned proceedings were initiated on the basis of powers vested in the authorities under Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act, 2023. The relevant provisions reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (16 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] "52. Revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if, at any time, before or after the lease deed, executed and registered, in respect of land disposed of under this Chapter either on lease hold basis or on free hold basis, the Authority has reasons to believe that allotment of land has been obtained, and lease deed has been executed, by way of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, it shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing to show cause why an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land should not be made.
(2) The notice shall-
(a) specify the grounds on which an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land is proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the land, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof.
(3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under sub-
section (1) and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Authority is satisfied that the lease is obtained by misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, the Authority may, make an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land and also make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the land shall be vacated by all persons who are or may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the land."
29.1 A reading of the above provision makes it clear that, before or after lease deeds are executed and registered in respect of land disposed of under Chapter VIII of the Act of 2023, either on a leasehold or freehold basis, if the authorities have reasons to (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (17 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] believe that the allotment of land and execution of lease deeds were made as result of misrepresentation of facts, forged documents, collusion, or in contravention of law, the development authority can take action for cancellation of allotment and execution of lease deeds. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act of 2023 further clarifies that if the authorities have such reasons as indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 52, a notice shall be issued, and such notice is required to mention the grounds on which the order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land is proposed to be made.
29.2 In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, which reads hereunder:-
"23. Power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc.-Where, by any Rajasthan law, a power to make or issue orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add, to amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications so made or issued."
From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that in any Rajasthan Law, a power to issue or make any notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or by-laws is conferred, such a power also include power to add, amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, by-laws or notifications so made or issued.
30. It is also relevant to refer to Section 90A(8) of the RLR Act, 1956 and Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Bill, 2022, which reads as follows:- (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (18 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] "[90-A.] Use of agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose -
8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) where before 17th June, 1999 any person. holding any land for agricultural purposes in an urban area or within the urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area, has used or has allowed to be used such land or part thereof for non-agricultural purposes or, has parted with possession of such land or part thereof for consideration by way of sale or agreement to sell and/ or by executing power of attorney and/or Will or in any other manner for purported manner for purported non-
agricultural use, the rights and interest of such person in the said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be. shall be liable to be terminated and the officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, shall, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person and recording reasons in writing for doing so, order for termination of his rights and interest in such land and thereupon the land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the local authority under section 102-A and shall be available for allotment or regularization by the local authority for a Patta given, by a Housing Cooperative Society or on the basis of any document of sale or agreement to sell or power of attorney or a Will or any other document purporting transfer of land to them either by the person whose rights and interests have been ordered to be terminated under this sub-section or by any other person claiming through such person, subject to the payment to the local authority of urban assessment or premium of both leviable and recoverable under subsection (4):"
XXX XXX XXX "2. Amendment of section 90-A, Rajasthan Act No.15 of 1956.- In sub-section (8) of Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No.15 of 1956):-
(i) for the existing expression "where before th 17 June, 1999", the expression "where before 31st December, 2921" shall be substituted."(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (19 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] 30.1 From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that any person holding agricultural land in the urban area or within the urban limits or peripheral belt of the urban area, who uses or is allowed to use a part of such land for non-agricultural purposes, or who has parted with possession of such land or part thereof for consideration by way of sale, agreement to sell, power of attorney, will, or by any other manner for a purported non-agricultural use, is liable to have their rights and interests terminated. The authorized officer is required to hear such a person having rights and interests and pass orders for the termination of those rights and interests. Upon such termination, the land vests with the local authority under Section 102, and such land is available for allotment or regularization by the Local Authority to the persons whose rights and interests are ordered to be terminated or to any other person claiming through them. However, such procedure is not applicable to certain described lands, the further elaboration of which is not required here.
31. The impugned orders in the present writ petitions do not reflect any reference to the show-cause notices before proposing to cancel the layout plans. However, the respondents allegedly issued a show-cause notice dated 27.05.2025, directing the petitioners to submit a revised plan for approval just two days before the Layout Approval Committee was scheduled to meet on 29.05.2025, the date on which the layout plan was ultimately cancelled. The invocation of powers under Section 52 of the Act of 2023 is limited to specific grounds. Before initiating cancellation proceedings, the notices must clearly indicate the grounds on (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (20 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] which the proposed cancellation are intended and the relevant material relied upon by the respondent authority must also be furnished to the parties to whom the notices were issued in order to enable them to make a proper response to the proposed action, which is having serious consequences. The respondents did not issue any show-cause notice specifically regarding the proposed cancellation of the layout patta. Instead, they issued notices concerning the cancellation of allotments and lease deeds, citing them as a consequence of the Layout Approval Committee's decision to cancel the layout. These show-cause notices lack independent reasoning or grounds; they merely state that the action is a consequence of the Committee's earlier decision. The notices dated 27.05.2025 were issued just two days before the cancellation of the layout plan asking the petitioners to bring revised lay out. No specific show-cause notice was issued regarding the proposed action of cancelation of approved layout plan. This sequence of events reflects a pre-determined mindset on the part of the Layout Approval Committee to cancel the previously approved layout and directed the petitioners to submit an amended plan. Furthermore, the notices were issued only two days prior to the cancellation and did not provide the petitioners with sufficient time to respond. According to the petitioners, the said notices were received by them only on the date the approved layout plans were cancelled. The respondents failed to produce any evidence on record to show that such notices were issued much earlier giving sufficient time to the petitioners to respondent such notices.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (21 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
32. The notices issued under Section 52(2) of the Act of 2023 were not in compliance of the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act of 2023. No-compliance of such a procedure would vitiate the entire proceedings under Section 52 of the Act of 2023.
33. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the provision of Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act as a counter-blast to the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 52 of the Act of 2023 do not comprehend the cancellation of layout plan but it only apply to allotment and execution of lease-deed. The learned counsel for the respondents while placing reliance upon the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of K.A. Prabhakar Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, reported in (1999)2 KarLJ 555, wherein the High Court of Karnataka had an occasion to consider Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899, which is similar to Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act. The Court held that the Authority possesses the power to modify or permit modification of the scheme or layout, even without any specific provision granting such power, by relying on its general power to frame the scheme or layout, which includes the authority to modify, amend, or rescind such scheme or lay out. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2008)4 SCC 584.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (22 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
34. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are relating to the similar question arose before the High Court of Karnataka. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are not in the same set of facts, as such, it is not relevant for the present issue. This Court is of the view that the authorities have power to amend or rescind the layout or scheme by invoking the section 23 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act read with Section 52 of the Act of 2023.
35. The impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on the ground that the entire process of cancellation was based solely on the audit report and internal enquiry report. These audit and internal reports were not made available to the petitioners. Non- furnishing of such foundational documents results in a violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the requirement of fair play, which is enshrined under Section 52(2) of the Act of 2023.
36. The impugned orders can also be examined in the context of their merits and sustainability. The claim of the respondents was that by virtue of the approved demarcated layout plan, the existing single plot approval for group housing was divided, and such division can only be done in accordance with the Rules of 1975. The single plot was more than 3000 Sq. yards, and if it exceeds 3000 Sq. Yds., the sub-division can only be granted with the approval of the State Government.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (23 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
37. To examine such contentions, it is apt to refer to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975, which reads hereunder:-
"12. Sub-division or re-constitution of Plots.-
(1) No plot which is residential or intended to be used for residential purpose, shall be less than 35 Sq. Yds, or bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of sub division. reconstitution or improvement of plots :
Provided that the Trust may with the previous sanction of the State Government, grant permission for reconstitution or sub-division of plot Digger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of reconstitution or sub-division as the case may be, of plots on the condition that the set back of the reconstituted plots shall be as per the scheme of prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size of the reconstituted plots, whichever is great and in case of sub-division of plots set back of original plot shall maintained. The maximum coverage and height of such reconstitute plots shall be as per prevailing building bye-laws.
(2) Due regard shall always be given to the existing character of development envisaged on the street or scheme in which a sub-division of plot is sought and other set back lines shall remain unaltered.
(3) No plot which is commercial or intended to be used for commercial purpose, shall be less than 10 Sq. Yds, or bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots:
Provided that the Trust may with the previous sanction of the State Government, grant permission for reconstitution or sub-division of plots bigger than 1500 Sq. Yds. in the schemes of reconstitution or sub-division, as the case may be, of plots on the condition that the set back of the reconstituted plots shall be as per the scheme of prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size of the reconstituted plots, whichever is greater and in case of 3ub-division of plots set back of original plot shall be maintained. The maximum coverage and height of such reconstituted plots shall be as per prevailing building bye-laws."
37.1 A reading of Rule 12 it makes clear that no residential plot shall be less than the minimum prescribed area and shall not (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (24 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] exceed the maximum prescribed area. In the original provision, the minimum size of a plot intended for residential purposes was 35 Sq. yards, and the maximum size of a plot was 1500 Sq. Yds.
If the developer wants to develop a bigger plot exceeding the prescribed maximum area, approval from State is required in the scheme of sub-division, reconstitution, and improvements. In the present case, the single plot size may be more than 3000 Sq. Yds. However, approval of the State Government is required only if the residential single plot size exceeds the maximum size prescribed under the Rule. For sub-division and reconstitution of the existing plot, if it meets the criteria of being between the minimum and maximum sizes, approval of the State Government is not required.
38. Now, comes to the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents and intervenors that since the single plot is more than 3000 Sq. Yds., the requirement of prior approval of the State Government in the scheme has no merit and is rejected. The approval of the revised plan was given in consequence of the policy adapted by the State Government, as is clear from the order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure-18 in both the writ petitions). The sub-division and reconstitution were done by altering the requirements to be maintained when the approval of a single plot for group housing was obtained. As such, there is no violation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975.
39. With regard to the submission concerning the saleable area, the respondents claim that the ratio of 60:40 should have been maintained. The petitioners contend that the 60:40 ratio is mandatory only in cases of plot development for independent residential units. Such a requirement is not applicable to cases (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (25 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] covered by group housing/flats schemes, where the saleable area is even permitted up to 100%. This is clear from Clause 11 of the Circular dated 25.02.2009, which reads hereunder:-
"11. The procedure for promoting private investment in the development of private township projects shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the Order No.P.10(1) Navidhi/2002 dated 1.1.2002. For layout plan approval (excluding group housing and plotted development), it is essential that 60% of the total area of the scheme be allocated for residential use and 40% for amenities and facilities."
39.1 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have strongly placed reliance on Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975, which reads hereunder:-
"11. Saleable area.- The saleable area in any scheme of sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots shall not exceed 66% of the total area, however in the schemes of development upto 2 Hectares it may be more subject to provisions of the prevailing Township Policy."
40. Admittedly, the present sub-division and reconstitution were within group housing scheme and not a development of independent residential units. The substance of the Circular dated 25.02.2009 dilutes the requirement contemplated under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 by excluding the applicability of such a ratio to the group housing. In the present cases, the existing group housing scheme was not altered completely and the larger plotted area of group housing were made into smaller area of group housing. Ultimately, the scheme of group housing was still maintained.
41. The Township Policy of 2010, more particularly Clause (2) of the Police reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (26 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] "(2) This Policy shall be applicable to the cases which are applied after the date of issue of this Policy as well as the pending cases. However, pending cases in which notice under Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been issued before the issue of this Policy would be considered under the provisions of Township Policy, 2002 unless the developer exercises the option of being considered under Policy for Residential, Group Housing and Other schemes in the Private Sector, 2010."
41.1 A reading of the above Clause clearly shows that where the proceedings under Section 90-B of the RLR Act, 1956 were commenced before the issuance of Township Policy, 2010, the provisions of Township Policy, 2002 are applicable unless developer exercised option of being considered under the Policy of 2010. There is no evidence on record that the builder has opted 2010-Policy by exercising its right of option as prescribed under Town Policy, 2010. In all the present cases, the notices under Section 90-B of RLR Act, 1956 were issued prior to the Township Policy, 2010 i.e. 2007-2008. By virtue of the above provision, the Township Policy of 2010 is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
42. The other ground, which can be said to be a contravention of provisions of law as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, was made one of the grounds in the impugned order is that 5% of the plotted area shall be reserved for EWS/LIG under the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2015. No doubt, the initial requirement was to leave 5% area in schemes developed after 2015. This condition has been watered down by relaxing the requirement in lieu of payment of determined fees, and these payments were further diluted by completely dispensing with the requirement of payment of fees in lieu of relaxation of the 5% (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38174] (27 of 28) [CW-9997/2024] area. Thus, when the regularization application was made, there was no requirement to maintain 5% area for the EWS/LIG, nor was there any requirement to pay any fee in view of not maintaining the said requirement. Thus, these grounds are also not sustainable.
43. On perusal of the impugned orders, nowhere it is reflected what facts constituted misrepresentation, nor are there any details regarding collusion or how such collusion was established. The alleged contraventions of various provisions are contrary to the new Township Policy and recent Circulars. The violations were claimed based on inapplicable provisions, ignoring the changes in Township Policies issued by the Government of Rajasthan from time to time. The entire demarcation of group housings was carried out in accordance with the Policy of 2021-2023. The petitioners have applied for a modified layout by utilizing the schemes issued by the State Government. The entire exercise by the respondent authorities amounts to a misinterpretation and misapplication of the existing provisions of the Township Policy. Therefore, the entire exercise of the respondents in canceling the layout plans as well the allotment and lease-deeds are unsustainable in the eye of law and they are liable to be set aside.
44. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 29.05.2025 cancelling the layout plans and placing allotments, and lease deeds under abeyance are set aside. Consequently, the orders passed prior to impugned cancellation orders prohibiting constructions and transfers and registrations over subject lands shall inoperative and shall not be adhered to. (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38174] (28 of 28) [CW-9997/2024]
45. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
46. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J NK (Downloaded on 02/09/2025 at 09:41:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)