Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra Tailor vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38407]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6929/2025
Jagdish Chandra Tailor S/o Shivnarayan Tailor, aged about 47
Years, Resident of Dhau Ji Ki Bawri Rakampura Road Bedwas
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-1, 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. Vedant Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Samyak Dalal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit, Adv.
Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 28/07/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025
1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned office orders dated 24.02.2025 and 27.02.2025 issued
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (2 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
by the Udaipur Development Authority, as well as the letter dated
19.03.2025 issued by the Urban Development & Housing
Department, Government of Rajasthan and the communication
dated 28.02.2025 issued by the Deputy Inspector General,
Registration & Stamps, District Udaipur. The petition also
challenges the decision of the Udaipur Development Authority
dated 27.03.2025, whereby the audit objections and the report of
the internal Enquiry Committee were accepted, and it was
proposed to cancel the approval of the petitioner's Residential
Integrated Township Scheme dated 11.10.2022 by placing the
matter before the Layout Plan Committee.
2) The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner is the
purchaser of lands situated in Revenue Villages Dhikli and Wada
through sale deeds dated 23.02.2022 and 21.07.2022. They
submitted an application for the development of a Residential
Integrated Township, by including lands situated in Revenue
Villages Nalafala, Wada, and Dhikli in District Udaipur, measuring a
total area of 14.7313 hectares. The petitioners obtained land
conversion under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the RLR Act, 1956") vide
orders dated 04.04.2008 and 29.04.2008. The petitioners, along
with other co-owners of the land, jointly applied for approval of
the Residential Integrated Township under the Rajasthan Township
Policy, 2010. The land forming part of the proposed township also
included land exchanged by the Udaipur Development Authority,
proportionate to the land conveyed by the petitioners. The land
exchanged by the petitioner was designated as plantation area
under the Master Plan, whereas the land received from the
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (3 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
Udaipur Development Authority formed part of the Highway
Development Control Area. Upon examining the application, the
authorities granted approval for the township by proceedings
dated 11.10.2022. Following such regularization, allotment letters
and lease deeds were issued for the lands covered under the
township. Based on those allotments and lease deeds, the
petitioner also sold several plots to various purchasers through
registered sale deeds.
3) The respondent-Authority, acting on a report of the Local
Audit Department and based on a private complaint, issued
several communications, more particularly, the communication
dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Urban Development & Housing
Department, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the Government
directed the Udaipur Development Authority to cancel the
approved plans, allotment letters, and lease deeds. Pursuant to
these directions from the State Government, the Udaipur
Development Authority, by communication dated 24.02.2025,
prohibited any transfer, sub-division, reconstitution, mutation,
change in land use, building permissions, or construction activities
on the plots covered under the Integrated Township approved on
11.10.2022. Subsequently, by another communication dated
27.02.2025, the Udaipur Development Authority requested the
District Collector to issue necessary instructions to the Sub-
Registrar and Tehsildar, District Udaipur, for compliance with the
UDA's letter dated 24.02.2025. The Deputy Inspector General,
Registration & Stamps, issued a letter dated 28.02.2025, directing
Sub-Registrar I and II, Udaipur, to take note of the UDA's
communication dated 24.02.2025 and act accordingly.
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (4 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
4) Initially, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of Udaipur
Development Authority, the proceedings of Urban Development
and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan and the letter
of DIG, Registration & Stamps by filing the present writ petition.
While such writ petition is pending, the Udaipur Development
Authority had constituted an Enquiry Committee to go into the
observations made in the local fund audit report and ultimately,
the Enquiry Committee also submitted a report confirming the
findings of Local Audit Department. The Udaipur Development
Authority by decision dated 27.03.2025 concurred with the
findings of Local Audit Department as well as the report of the
Enquiry Committee and accepted the local audit fund report as
well as the enquiry report and directed to place the matter before
the Layout Plan Committee in order to rescind the approval dated
11.10.2022. Such a decision of the Udaipur Development
Authority has been also assailed in the present writ petition having
amended the prayer.
5) In the above background of the facts, the petitioner
approached this Court by challenging the above proceedings and
the decision of Udaipur Development Authority accepting the audit
report and enquiry report.
6) The case of the respondents is that the approval of the
Residential Integrated Township Scheme was granted by the
Empowered Committee constituted under the Prashasan Shaharon
Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021-2023. However, such approval was
granted in contravention of the requirements prescribed under the
said scheme. The respondents also claimed that as per the
scheme, a minimum of 10 hectares of land must be available as a
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (5 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
single piece in order to qualify for development of Integrated
Township. In the present case, the land forming part of the
approved township is situated in three different villages and is
neither contiguous nor consolidated. It is further claimed that
third-party land intervenes between the parcels, thereby breaking
the contiguity. Accordingly, the respondents assert that the
approval granted to the Integrated Township Scheme is in
violation of the procedural requirements of the applicable town
policy.
7) The respondents also claimed that the land which was
exchanged was only with reference to the saleable area vis-a-vis
the exchanged land, whereas the actual land exchanged was
1,65,040 sq. ft. On record, it is shown as only 90,476 sq. ft.,
which is equivalent to 90,491 sq. ft., the land of the petitioner
exchanged to the Udaipur Development Authority. There is an
excess allotment of 74,551 sq. ft. of land. Further, the land of the
petitioner which was exchanged was located in the plantation area
of the Master Plan, whereas the land of the Udaipur Development
Authority is part of the Highway Development Control Area, which
land can only be used for residential and other commercial
purposes, and such land has more value than the land exchanged
by the petitioner. Therefore, on the above background, the
cancellation of the layout plan is required to be made.
8) The respondents also claimed that filing of the present
writ petition is pre-mature as no final orders have been passed
cancelling the layout approval; and hence, prayed to dismiss the
writ petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (6 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
9) Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the
petitioner and the respondents.
10) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner was targeted by the Udaipur
Development Authority based on incorrect observations of the
Local Fund Audit Department and the letter dated 19.03.2025
issued by the Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Rajasthan, whereby positive directions were given
to the Udaipur Development Authority to cancel the allotments
and lease deeds by cancelling the approved layout plan. The
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted
that the entire proceedings issued by the Udaipur Development
Authority as well as the Deputy Inspector General, Registration &
Stamps, are intended to comply with the directions issued by the
Urban Development Department of the State of Rajasthan. There
has been no proper application of mind, and such drastic steps
were taken in contemplation of cancellation of the layout plan
without any notice to the petitioner.
11) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
entire action proposed was at the behest of the intervenor, who
had a private dispute with the developer. The learned Senior
Counsel also contended that, although no final orders have been
passed under Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act
cancelling the layout plan, allotment letters, and lease deeds, the
decision dated 27.03.2025 of the Udaipur Development Authority
amounts to a pre-determination to cancel the approval of the
layout by accepting the audit report and internal enquiry report.
This would amount to taking a decision prior to hearing the
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (7 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
affected parties for the proposed action. If the petitioner is
required to wait until final orders are passed under Section 52 of
the Udaipur Development Act, it would render the entire process a
fait accompli and cause great harm to the petitioner and other
innocent purchasers relying on the layout approval.
12) The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
Residential Integrated Township Scheme, approved as per the
Township Policy, requires a minimum of 10 hectares. It was
submitted that although the land forms part of three different
villages, these lands are contiguous to each other and forms part
and parcel of the petitioner's previously approved integrated
township from 2018. It is also the petitioner's case that two
different integrated township schemes can be amalgamated to
form one scheme as per the Township Policy, 2010, particularly
Clause 5.1 of the said Policy.
13) The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the land
which the petitioner exchanged with the Udaipur Development
Authority, though classified as plantation land under the Master
Plan, but it is abutting to the National Highway. Whereas the land
given to the petitioner by the Udaipur Development Authority,
though falling under the Highway Development Control Area, is of
lesser value than the petitioner's land, and there is no financial
loss. He also submitted that, considering the high value of the
petitioner's land and its location, proportionate land was
exchanged. There is no loss to the exchequer of the Development
Authority. Even assuming there is a loss to the exchequer, the
Authority can take appropriate proceedings for recovery of the
balance value of the land and should not resort to cancellation of
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (8 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
the approved plan. In the above facts and circumstances, it is not
required to wait till final orders are to be passed. It is also
contended that in similar cases, based on the audit report and
enquiry report, final orders have been passed accepting the audit
and enquiry reports. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ
petition.
14) Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents and intervenor have submitted that a close scrutiny
of the facts on record clearly demonstrates that this is a case of
undue advantage and non-compliance with statutory requirements
for the grant of an Integrated Residential Township. They further
submitted that the Integrated Township Scheme requires a
minimum of 10 hectares of land as a single parcel, whereas the
petitioner's land is scattered across three villages, with third-
parties lands are intervening between these parcels. Such land
cannot be considered a single contiguous parcel to qualify under
the Integrated Township Policy. It is also their contention that the
exchange of land between the petitioner and the Udaipur
Development Authority was not conducted fairly, involving unequal
bargaining for various reasons, and excess land was not accounted
for during the exchange. Therefore, there is a financial loss to the
exchequer of the Udaipur Development Authority, as noted in the
Local Fund Audit report, which observes a substantial financial loss
to the Authority.
15) Lastly, it is contended by learned counsels for the
respondents and intervenor that the present writ petition is pre-
mature as no decision has been taken to cancel the layout plan;
the only decision made was to accept the audit report and enquiry
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (9 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
report, and there was proposal to initiate proceedings under
Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act.
16) I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
17) In the above backdrop of the facts, the question arose
whether it is appropriate for this Court to intervene in the
impugned proceedings before final decision is taken under Section
52 of the Udaipur Development Act.
18) The facts which are not seriously in dispute are that the
petitioner obtained approval for an Integrated Residential
Township in the year 2018. The above integrated township is
contiguous to the presently proposed new integrated township. It
is also not in dispute that the land parcels are located in three
different villages. The respondents contend that the Township
Policy, 2010 requires a minimum area of 10 hectares for an
Integrated Township, which must be a single contiguous piece of
land and not scattered. The approved layout plan, which is now
sought to be cancelled, clearly indicates that the approved
residential township plan is contiguous to the previously approved
plan. As per the Township Policy, 2010, two schemes of different
developers may be clubbed together with the consent of the
parties and approved as a single scheme, provided the minimum
combined area must be 10 hectares for the grant of an Integrated
Township layout. If the petitioner's original integrated scheme of
2008 and the integrated scheme of 2018 are considered together,
the total area exceeds 27.91 hectares, which is well above the 10
hectares which is minimum required for any residential integrated
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (10 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
township scheme. The approved layout clearly demonstrates that
the parcels forming part of the later residential township plan are
not scattered but are part and parcel of, and contiguous to the
original integrated schemes. Further, the old Township Policy, 2010
clearly allows the clubbing of two schemes into one, subject to a
minimum combined area of 10 hectares. Even assuming that the
lands forming part of the second approved integrated township are
separate parcels, these parcels are contiguous to the petitioner's
previously approved integrated scheme. Therefore, both can be
clubbed to form a single scheme, meeting the criteria laid down
under Clause 5 of the Township Policy, 2010.
19) The decision dated 27.03.2025 of the Udaipur Development
Authority clearly reflects an intention to cancel the approved
layout by accepting the audit report and internal enquiry report.
The decision indicates that the allegations made in the Local Fund
Audit were verified by the Enquiry Committee and found to be
correct. These findings demonstrate that before initiating action
under Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act, the authorities
had already formed an opinion and decided that the petitioner
violated the Integrated Township Policy requirements in obtaining
approval of the plan in 2022. If such a conclusion has been
reached, there remains nothing to be adjudicated by initiating the
proceedings under Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act.
Similar actions have also been taken in various other layouts
based on observations in the Local Fund Audit and Enquiry
reports, which were themselves based on a letter issued by the
Urban Development Department of the Government of Rajasthan
directing the Udaipur Development Authority to initiate
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (11 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
proceedings for cancellation of the plan as well as the allotment
and lease deeds. Allowing further proceedings would be an empty
formality and amount to an abuse of process by the respondent-
authorities, who would be unnecessarily subjecting the petitioner
to the ritual of formal orders under Section 52 of the Udaipur
Development Act
20) The impugned proceedings can also be tested on merits.
One of the grounds stated for proposed cancellation was that the
land of the petitioner which was exchanged with the respondents-
Authority falls under the plantation area of the Master Plan,
whereas the land exchanged by the respondents with the
petitioner falls under the Highway Development Control Area,
which is more valuable and has greater potential. Whereas, the
petitioner's exchanged land is of lesser value as it was part of the
plantation area in the Master Plan.
21) The other ground was that only the extent of saleable
land was exchanged, ignoring the land used for internal roads and
access road. There is no allegation of collusion between the
petitioner and the members of Empowered Committee, which has
approved the exchange. Exchange is a transfer, and a transfer is
not invalid merely because sufficient consideration was not paid. If
some consideration was given, then the transfer itself is valid
unless it has been challenged on any other grounds and set aside
in appropriate proceedings. The only allegation in the present case
is that the value of the land exchanged by the respondents has
more potential than the value of the land exchanged by the
petitioner. This cannot be taken as a ground to proceed with the
cancellation of the layout plan. At the most, if the respondents-
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (12 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
Authority feel that the value of the land exchanged was not
proportionate to the value of the land exchanged by the petitioner,
they can take steps to recover the balance value to maintain value
equilibrium of exchanged lands. It would be a drastic step to allow
the respondents to proceed with the cancellation of the layout plan
solely on the premise that the land exchanged is of unequal value.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings
under Section 52 of the Udaipur Development Act in spite of clear
decision by the Development Authority with regard to non-
compliance of requirement of the Township Policy and other
grounds taken, is not justified. These proceedings appeared to be
influenced by bias on the part of the Development Authorities.
This bias stemmed from directions issued by the Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan,
which instructed the Udaipur Development Authority to cancel the
layout plan, allotments, and lease deeds, without allowing the
Authority to independently and rightfully examine such
allegations.
22) The entire decision of the Udaipur Development Authority
in accepting the audit report and enquiry report; and placing the
matter before the Layout Committee is nothing but pre-judging
the matter before the petitioner was heard. Even if the petitioner
is heard and passed the final order, the final outcome would be the
same, as was done in other cases. Allowing further proceedings
amounts abuse of process. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
interfere in the impugned proceedings.
23) In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
office orders dated 24.02.2025 & 27.02.2025 passed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:38407] (13 of 13) [CW-6929/2025]
Udaipur Development Authority and the letter dated 19.03.2025
issued by Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Rajasthan as well as communication letter dated
28.02.2025 issued by Deputy Inspector General, Registration &
Stamps, Distt. Udaipur and the decision of the Udaipur
Development Authority dated 27.03.2025 are hereby quashed.
24) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
25) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
