Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dinesh Chandra Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:31618]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6805/2025
Kavita Jain W/o Lalit Kumar Jain, Aged About 59 Years, Resident
of 96 Sarv Ritu Vilas, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
         Development and Housing Department, Government of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, through its
         Commissioner.
3.       Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4.       Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps,
         District Udaipur.
5.       Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur.
6.       Sub-Registrar-II, Udaipur.
7.       Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.
8.       Tehsildar, Badgaon, District Udaipur.
9.       Tehsildar, Kurabad, District Udaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents
                             Connected With

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6766/2025

 1.       Dinesh Chandra Sharma S/o Madan Mohan Sharma,
          Aged About 65 Years, resident of 111, Anand Nagar,
          Behind Anand Plaza, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
 2.       Sudha Sharma W/o Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Aged
          About 60 Years, Resident of 111, Anand Nagar, Behind
          Anand Plaza, 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
          Commissioner.


                      (Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:23:40 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:31618]                    (2 of 22)                      [CW-6805/2025]



 3.       Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
 4.       Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps,
          District Udaipur.
 5.       Sub Registrar-I, Udaipur.
 6.       Sub Registrar-II, Udaipur.
 7.       Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.
 8.       Tehsildar, Badgaon, District Udaipur.
 9.       Tehsildar, Kurabad, District Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents




For Petitioner(s)      :        Dr.Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
                                Mr.Samyak Dalal, Adv.
                                Mr.J.S.Saluja, Adv.
                                Mr.Vedant Agrwal, Adv.
                                Mr.Pranjul Mehta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)      :        Mr.Vijay Purohit, Adv.
                                Mr.Ayush Gehlot for
                                Mr.Rajesh Panwar, AAG
                                Mr.Shubham Ojha, Adv.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 26/05/2025 Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025

1. This order disposes of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.

6805/2023 and 6766/2025.

2. The challenge in the above writ petitions pertains to order

dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Udaipur Development Authority,

whereby layout approval dated 24.01.2023 and consequential

allotment and lease-deeds in favour of the writ petitioners have

been cancelled.

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (3 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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

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 both 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 dated

18.03.2007 and 02.03.2007. The layout plans were approved by

the Urban Improvement Trust of Udaipur. The approved layout

plan was a single plot intended for group housing purposes.

Certain government lands were part of the layout. Accordingly, the

Government granted permission for the allotment of the

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (4 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

government land forming part and parcel of the layout, vide

proceedings dated 22.09.2010, at the reserve price or DLC rate.

During the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021-2023, the

petitioners made applications for approval of a freshly demarcated

plan. The said demarcated plans were approved by the Layout

Plan Committee, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2023.

Subsequently, the allotment letters and lease deeds were also

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

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

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (5 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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 27.03.2025 cancelling the approval of demarcated map and

consequential allotment letters and execution of sale-deeds.

Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

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 single plot. The approved

layout plan for group housing was 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

approved demarcated plan was 95.12%, which is contrary to the

Township Policy, 2010. The third ground was the absence of any

provision in the approved demarcated 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

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (6 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

than 300 Sq. Mtrs. cannot be permitted without the sanction of

the State Government. The fifth ground was that the reserve price

or DLC rate fixed for the government-adopted lands was on the

lower side, and such allotments reflect collusion between the then

officers of the Udaipur Development Authority and the writ

petitioners. 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 challenge against various interim orders passed

by the Udaipur Development Authority and they have lost their

significance due to the passing of final order cancelling the layout.

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 of

the single plot for group housing was contrary to various

provisions of building 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. The approval of the

demarcated plan was granted despite the land not being

partitioned, and no allotment or lease deeds were executed in

favour of the co-owner, more particularly Govind Aggarwal. The

impugned orders were passed after considering the case set up by

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (7 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

the petitioners; hence, the respondents have prayed for the

dismissal of the writ petitions.

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, and the enquiry report is not

required to be furnished to the petitioners. Such enquiry 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, which enables them 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 respondents, were passed with due

application of mind in light of the prevailing circumstances, and

the writ petitions are therefore misconceived; and prayed for

dismissal of the writ petitions.

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 order dated 27.03.2025,

whereby the layout approval granted in favour of the petitioners in

the year 2023 were cancelled, are sustainable in law, both on

merits and in light of the relevant statutory provisions.

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (8 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of the layout

plan is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the

requirement of Section 52 of the Act of 2023 are not satisfied. The

above statutory provisions mandate the issuance of a show-cause

notice incorporating the grounds on which such action is proposed.

In the present case, no such notice was issued. Thus, ex facie, the

order is unsustainable in the eye of law.

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. Mtrs., 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

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (9 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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. Mtrs. was required to be maintained

as per the Building Regulations, and since the plot 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

contended that the 60:40 ratio is not applicable in cases where

the plan was approved as a group housing/plot for development,

and that in such group housing or flats development cases, 100%

saleable area can also be approved. The 60:40 ratio is required to

be maintained only in cases of plot development for independent

residential units.

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 contended that the stand

of the respondents that the government land allotted to the

petitioner is abutting a 60 ft. road and could be used for

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (10 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

independent development and could have fetched a higher price,

has no merit for the reason that the State Government approved

the allotment considering the requirement of such land for the

planned development of the petitioners' private lands and allowed

to fix the rates of land basing on the reserve price or the DLC rate.

The respondent authority fixed a rate higher than the prevailing

price, and such allotment and rate fixation were never challenged.

As such, the same cannot be a ground to invoke the power under

Section 52 of the Act of 2023.

21. 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 joint

interest over the subject land, they could have challenged the

conversions as well as grant of layout in the year 2007. Silence of

such khatedari holders would go to show that they have no

grievance and the interest of the petitioners are segregated. There

is no need to have the partition on such the land. Such complaints

cannot be made foundation for setting aside the permission

granted by the competent authority.

22. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the audit

report and enquiry report, which form the foundation for initiating

the entire action against the petitioners, were not furnished to the

petitioners, and therefore, any findings therein cannot be used to

justify the initiation of the action. On this ground as well, the

impugned order is not sustainable.

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (11 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

23. 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.

24. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and

the intervenors submitted that the sub-division and reconstitution

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 divided 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.

25. 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 95%.

Allowing such a high saleable area is contrary to the Rules and

Regulations governing the approval of layouts.

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (12 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

26. 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.

27. 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

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.

28. 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.

29. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (13 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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.

30. 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

which has been regularized change of 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:-

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (14 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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."

30.1 A reading of the above provision makes it clear that,

before or after lease deeds are executed and registered in respect

of land disposed of under Chapter VIII of the Act of 2023, either

on a leasehold or freehold basis, if the authorities have reasons to

believe that the allotment of land and execution of lease deeds

were made as result of misrepresentation of facts, forged

documents, collusion, or in contravention of law, the development

authority can take action for cancellation of allotment and

execution of lease deeds. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act

of 2023 further clarifies that if the authorities have such reasons

as indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 52, a notice shall be

issued, and such notice is required to mention the grounds on

which the order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the

lease deed of the land is proposed to be made.

31. 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:-

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (15 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

"[90-A.] Use of agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose -

8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) where before 17th June, 1999 any person. holding any land for agricultural purposes in an urban area or within the urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area, has used or has allowed to be used such land or part thereof for non-agricultural purposes or, has parted with possession of such land or part thereof for consideration by way of sale or agreement to sell and/ or by executing power of attorney and/or Will or in any other manner for purported manner for purported non-

agricultural use, the rights and interest of such person in the said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be. shall be liable to be terminated and the officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, shall, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person and recording reasons in writing for doing so, order for termination of his rights and interest in such land and thereupon the land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the local authority under section 102-A and shall be available for allotment or regularization by the local authority for a Patta given, by a Housing Cooperative Society or on the basis of any document of sale or agreement to sell or power of attorney or a Will or any other document purporting transfer of land to them either by the person whose rights and interests have been ordered to be terminated under this sub-section or by any other person claiming through such person, subject to the payment to the local authority of urban assessment or premium of both leviable and recoverable under subsection (4):"

XXX XXX XXX

"2. Amendment of section 90-A, Rajasthan Act No.15 of 1956.- In sub-section (8) of Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No.15 of 1956):-

(i) for the existing expression "where before th 17 June, 1999", the expression "where before 31st December, 2921" shall be substituted."

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (16 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

31.1 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.

32. The impugned orders in the present writ petitions do not

reflect any reference to show cause notice before the cancellation

of the layout plan, allotment, and execution of lease deeds. The

invocation of powers under Section 52 of the Act of 2023 is limited

to specific grounds only. Before initiating cancellation proceedings,

the notice must indicate the grounds on which the proposed

cancellation is intended, and the relevant material relied upon by

the authorities must also be furnished to the parties to whom the

notices are issued, in order to enable them to make a proper

response to the proposed action, which is serious in nature. The

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (17 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

respondents have failed to bring on record that show cause

notices, as required under Section 52(2) of the Act of 2023, were

issued before passing the cancellation order under challenge. Non-

compliance with such procedure would vitiate the entire notice.

33. 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.

34. 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 300 Sq. Mtrs., and if it

exceeds 3000 Sq. Yds., the approval of the division can only be

granted with the approval of the State Government.

35. 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 :

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (18 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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."

35.1 A reading of Rule 12 it makes clear that no residential plot

shall be less than the minimum prescribed area and not exceed

the maximum prescribed area. In the original provision, the

minimum size of a plot intended for residential purposes was 35

Sq. Mtrs., and the maximum size of a plot was 1500 Sq. Yds. If

the developer wants to develop a bigger plot exceeding the

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (19 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

prescribed maximum area, approval 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.

36. 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 adopted 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.

37. 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

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:-

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (20 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

"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."

38. Admittedly, the present sub-division and reconstitution

were within the group housing scheme and not development of

independent residential units. The substance of the above Circular

clearly shows that in group housing schemes, the ratio of saleable

area to facility area of 60:40 as mentioned in the Township Policy,

2010, is not applicable. In light of the Circular dated 25.02.2009,

the respondents cannot contend that the petitioners are required

to maintain the saleable area vis-a-vis facility area in the ratio of

60:40, as it is not a plot development for independent residential

units. The justification invoked by the respondent authority for

cancelling the layout plans, allotments, and lease deeds on this

ground is untenable.

39. 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%

area. Thus, when the regularization application was made, there

[2025:RJ-JD:31618] (21 of 22) [CW-6805/2025]

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.

40. In the present case, the impugned orders reflect that the

cancellation of the layout was on the ground of collusion between

the petitioners and the then respondent-authority in allotting

government land and fixing a lower rate. The fact remains that the

allotment of land was made in the year 2010, and the price was

fixed considering the prevailing reserve price and DLC rates. Till

date, there has been no cancellation of the allotment, and no one

has challenged the fixation of the market price of such

government land. The authority under Section 52 of the Act of

2023 cannot go into such an issue when no one challenges the

allotment and fixation of the market price. In this regard, it is

relevant to refer to Clause-1 of the Circular dated 13.10.2011

issued by the respondent (Annexure-21), which reads as

hereunder:-

"1. For cases prior to 28.06.2010, where proceedings under Section 90B(3) were completed before the implementation of the Township Policy, 2010:

                     ●      If the Government land is developed, the
                     rate shall be as per the reserved rate of that
                     scheme or nearby schemes.
                     ●       If the land is undeveloped, the rate shall