Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"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) [2025:RJ-JD:52238] (23 of 44) [CW-4675/2023] fo'k;% mn;iqj ds ekLVj Iyku&2031 ds Hkw&miksx Iyku&2031 ds uD"ks esa jktho xka/kh ikdZ ds ikl xyr vafdr Hkw&miksx 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&miksx ;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&miksx ;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&miksx ;kstuk ekufp= esa xzhu {ks=&1 vafdr dj n"kkZ;k gqvk gS ftls lehih; n"kkZ;s x;s Hkw&miksx vuqlkj gh xzhu {ks+=&2 la"kksf/kr dj n"kkZ;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA"

"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:

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) [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) [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.

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) [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.