Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vikas Modi S/O Om Prakash Modi vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:26591]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9036/2026
URN: CW / 20017U / 2026
PETITIONER:
Vikas Modi S/o Om Prakash Modi, aged about 50 years, R/o 105,
Sch No. 3, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Local Bodies, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Alwar.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mathur Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Punit Singhvi Advocate,
Mr. Ishan Verma Advocate,
Ms. Shradha Mehta Advocate, Mr. Ajay
S. Rathore Advocate and Ms. Gaurika
Bhansali Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr.
Raghav Sharma Advocate, Mr. Shivam
Sharma Advocate & Ms. Jyoti Sharma
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 03.07.2026
Date on which judgment was reserved :: 03.07.2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement :: 17.07.2026
1. Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to order
dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Alwar cancelling the patta/lease deed issued in favour
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (2 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
of the petitioner under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities
Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2009’) and order
dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Director and Special Secretary,
Local Self Department, Rajasthan holding the proceedings
undertaken under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1956’) in respect of
the subject land to be void ab initio.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the land in
question forms part of the property popularly known as “Diwan Ji Ka
Bagh” situated at Alwar. According to the petitioner, the land was
declared to be private property of Shri Manohar Lal by the Additional
Jagir Commissioner vide order dated 29.09.1961. Thereafter, by a
series of transactions including a gift deed, agreement to sell,
testamentary succession and release deed, rights in the property
ultimately devolved upon Shri Arun Kumar and Shri Mudit Jain.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that although acquisition
proceedings were initiated under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1959’), neither
compensation was paid, nor possession was taken. The land
continuously remained in possession of the predecessors-in-interest
of the petitioner and was continuously used for various purposes. It
is further pleaded that applications were submitted for
regularisation/change of land use and thereafter, proceedings under
Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 culminated in issuance of
pattas/lease deeds by the Municipal Corporation in the year 2025.
4. The petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser, who
purchased a portion of the land on the basis of revenue entries,
proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 and the patta
issued by the competent authority. Subsequently, show cause notice
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (3 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
dated 04.03.2026 was issued alleging that the land formed part of a
green belt/green area under Master Plan 2031 and that pattas had
been obtained in contravention of law. Thereafter, vide order dated
12.03.2026, the patta was cancelled and vide order dated
20.04.2026, the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self
Department, Rajasthan declared the proceedings under Section 90-A
of the Act of 1956 to be void ab initio. As per petitioner, such
proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and against the statutory as well as
constitutional rights of the petitioner.
5. Writ Petition has been opposed by the respondents by way
of filing reply to the writ petition, wherein the respondents
contended that Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 specifically
empowers the Municipality to cancel even a registered patta if it has
been obtained by misrepresentation or in contravention of law. It is
contended that the land in question forms part of the Green
Belt/Green Area under Master Plan 2031 and, in view of the
directions issued by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat
Jodhpur vide order dated 12.01.2017 in Gulab Kothari v. State of
Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/2004 &
other connected matters), no residential use or regularisation
contrary to the Master Plan is permissible. Consequently, the
proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 and all
consequential pattas were void ab initio.
6. The respondents further pleaded that the land had vested
in the State by virtue of acquisition and was re-allotted in 1986 on a
99 years lease subject to the condition that it would be used only as
an orchard, failing which it would revert back to the UIT concerned.
The petitioner’s own pleadings reveal that industrial and commercial
activities were being carried out on the land and that the orchard
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (4 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
character ceased long ago, thereby, violating the conditions of re-
allotment.
7. It was also averred by the respondents that the claim of
the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser is also disputed on the
ground that the agreement to sell was executed even before the
order under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 was passed. It is
submitted that no person can acquire a better title than that
possessed by the vendor. The respondents deny any violation of
principles of natural justice stating that show-cause notice was
issued, reply was received and considered, and only thereafter the
cancellation order was passed.
8. Shri R. N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and assisted by Shri Punit Singhvi, learned
counsel, contended that the land in question was always a private
khatedari land and could not have been treated as green belt without
following due process of law. It was argued that no notice was ever
issued to the original landholders before the land in question was
shown as green belt in the Master Plan and, therefore, the very
foundation of the impugned action is illegal.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, who acquired rights only after
examining the revenue records, title documents, proceedings under
Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 and the patta issued by the
Municipal Corporation itself. Having issued the patta after accepting
conversion charges and completing statutory formalities, the
respondents are estopped from cancelling the same.
10. It was further contended that the proceedings under
Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 were undertaken mechanically and in
violation of principles of natural justice. Allegations of concealment
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (5 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
levelled upon the petitioner are baseless and unfounded. According
to learned Senior Counsel, the respondents have declared the
proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 void ab initio
without following the procedure prescribed under law and without
granting an effective opportunity of hearing.
11. It was also argued that cancellation of the patta deprives
the petitioner of his own property which is in violation of Article 300-
A of the Constitution as also arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
12. Per contra, Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and
argued that the land in question is admittedly shown as green
area/green belt in Master Plan 2031 and, therefore, no residential
patta could have been issued in respect thereof.
13. It was contended that the proceedings undertaken under
Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 were wholly without jurisdiction
since land use conversion contrary to a notified Master Plan is
impermissible in law. Consequently, the proceedings under Section
90-A of the Act of 1956 were void ab initio and all subsequent
actions flowing therefrom, including issuance of patta, were also void
and illegal.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the show cause notice dated 04.03.2026 was issued, reply
submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and thereafter the
impugned order was passed. Therefore, principles of natural justice
stood fully complied with.
15. It was also argued that the petitioner cannot claim to be a
bona fide purchaser because the agreement to sell itself was
executed on 02.12.2022, much prior to order dated 25.04.2023
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (6 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
passed under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim that he acted on the basis of subsequent
regularisation proceedings.
16. Lastly, it was contended that no person can derive any
benefit from an order which is void ab initio and the doctrine of
estoppel cannot operate against statute.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his
arguments, relied upon judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the cases of Bannaram & Others vs.
Municipal Board, Nokha & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
10570/2023 & other connected petitions decided on
12.09.2023) and Nar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Another
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12743/2023 decided on
21.09.2023).
18. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
19. The central issue arising for consideration in the present
writ petition is whether the proceedings conducted under Section 90-
A of the Act of 1956 and the consequential patta issued in favour of
the petitioner could legally survive when the subject land admittedly
formed part of the Green Belt under the notified Master Plan, 2031.
20. Upon examination of the contents of the writ petition and
material placed on record, this court finds that earlier when the land
in question was owned and possessed by Smt. Sushila Devi,
predecessor-in-title, a notification under Section 07.04.1978 was
issued by the State Government under Section 52(1) of the Act of
1959, to acquire the land for residential scheme of Urban
Improvement Trust, which appeared to have been opposed by the
then land owner on the ground that since the land in question was
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (7 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
being used for “orchard”, therefore, residential scheme cannot be
chalked out thereupon by the Government. On such request made by
the then land owner, Smt. Sushila Devi, Dy. Secretary to the
Government of Rajasthan wrote a letter dated 09.09.1986 to the
Secretary, UIT, Alwar contending therein that the land in question
was being utilised as an orchard by the land owner, whereas it was
acquired for residential-cum-commercial scheme of UIT., Alwar and
after publication of notification u/s 52(1) of the Act of 1959, the land
stood vested in the State Government. In view of the prevailing use
of the land and the use shown in the draft master plan, it was
desirable not to utilise this land for the residential-cum-commercial
scheme of the UIT. Since, the land vested in the State Government,
it was decided to re-allot the same to the owner on 99 years lease
basis subject to the condition that no compensation for the land will
be payable and also the owner will be required to pay the token
lease money of Rs. 100/- per year, with further condition that in case
the land is put to any use other than orchard, it will revert to the UIT
free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, with the above conditions,
the land was re-allotted to predecessor in title to the petitioner.
21. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner
himself has placed on record several documents, such as registration
certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Alwar, certificate
of registration by Commercial Tax Officer, License issued for running
small scale industry (collectively marked as Annexure-7 with the
writ Petition), to demonstrate that in violation of specific conditions
of above letter of re-allotment of land dated 09.09.1986, the
petitioner/his predecessor in title have unauthorisedly changed the
use of the land in question from orchard to commercial/industrial
purposes. Therefore, as per clear terms and conditions of letter
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (8 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
dated 09.09.1986, on violation of permissible land use, the land was
bound to revert back to UIT.
22. At the very outset, it is significant to note that there is no
dispute whatsoever with regard to the fact that the subject land is
reflected as Green Area/Green Belt in the Master Plan, 2031. The
communication dated 22.09.2022 issued by the competent planning
authority, which has been relied upon even by the petitioner in his
pleadings (para 13 of the writ petition), unequivocally records that
the concerned khasra numbers fall within the Green Belt. Thus, the
foundational factual position regarding the land use designation
stands established from the record itself.
23. Once the land is shown in a notified Master Plan as Green
Belt, the legal consequences flowing therefrom are unavoidable. A
Master Plan prepared under the planning statutes is not merely an
advisory document or a statement of governmental intent, it is a
statutory instrument having binding force upon all authorities and
citizens alike. Every authority exercising powers relating to land use,
conversion, regularisation, allotment or grant of pattas is bound to
act within the four corners of the Master Plan. Any action contrary
thereto would be contrary to the statutory scheme itself.
24. The object of earmarking land as Green Belt is to preserve
ecological balance, maintain environmental sustainability, prevent
unregulated urban spread and secure planned development of urban
areas. Such lands constitute an integral component of urban
planning and are preserved in larger public interest. Therefore, any
administrative action permitting residential or commercial utilisation
of land falling within a Green Belt cannot be treated as a mere
irregular exercise of power, but would amount to defeating the very
object of the planning legislation.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (9 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
25. The legal proposition clearly emerges that a Master Plan
or Development Plan framed under a town planning statute has
statutory force. Neither the planning authority, nor the State
Government can permit change of land use in derogation of the
Master Plan except by following the statutory procedure for its
amendment. Any permission, sanction, Patta (lease deed) or
executive order permitting use of land contrary to the Master Plan is
ultra vires, illegal and liable to be quashed.
26. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the material
placed on record further reveals that the order dated 25.04.2023
passed under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 was the foundation
upon which subsequent pattas came to be issued. This Court also
noticed that while passing order dated 25.04.2023 under Section 90-
A of the Act of 1956, an incorrect statement, contrary to the record,
was mischievously recorded by the competent Authority and it was
observed that upon consideration of the material available on record,
the Authority was of the opinion that the proposed non-agricultural
use (residential in nature) of the land in question was in conformity
with the Master Plan. Whereas admittedly, the land in question was
falling in Green Belt shown in Master Plan. Thus, order dated
25.04.2023 was passed by the concerned Authority contrary to the
Master Plan and by making misleading as well as wrong statement in
its order dated 25.04.2023.
27. It is a settled principle of law that an authority exercising
powers under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 cannot grant
conversion or regularisation in derogation of a binding statutory
Master Plan. A planning statute and a duly notified Master Plan are
not mere administrative guidelines, but have statutory force. Any
order passed contrary thereto is void and unenforceable in law.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (10 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
28. As observed here-in-above, order dated 25.04.2023
passed under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 constituted the very
foundation upon which subsequent regularisation proceedings and
issuance of pattas were based. It is a settled principle that where the
foundational action is without jurisdiction, all consequential actions
based upon such foundation automatically collapse. An order passed
without jurisdiction neither creates rights, nor confers legal sanctity
upon subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom. Consequently, if the
proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 were
impermissible in law, the pattas issued pursuant thereto could not
acquire an independent or superior legal status.
29. The power under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 cannot
be exercised in derogation of statutory planning restrictions. A
statutory authority is a creature of statute and must act within the
limitations imposed by law. No authority exercising powers under the
Act of 1956 can authorise a land use which directly conflicts with a
notified Master Plan. Any such exercise would amount to
transgressing jurisdictional limits and would render the resultant
order a nullity in the eyes of law.
30. Impugned order dated 20.04.2026 proceeds on the
finding that the land forms part of the Green Belt and, therefore, the
conversion proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 were
void ab initio. Significantly, the petitioner has neither challenged the
validity of the Master Plan, nor demonstrated that the Green Belt
designation stood altered, modified or withdrawn through any legally
recognised process. In the absence of any challenge to the statutory
planning framework itself, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of
rights which are fundamentally inconsistent with the Master Plan.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (11 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
31. This Court also finds no substance in the contention that
the Municipal Corporation became functus officio after issuance of
the registered patta. Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 has been
specifically enacted to empower the competent authority to revisit
and cancel allotments, lease deeds and pattas obtained by
misrepresentation, fraud, collusion or in contravention of law. The
legislative intent underlying the provision is manifestly clear, namely,
that registration of a patta should not become a shield for
perpetuating illegality. A registered document cannot sanctify an
action which was void at its inception.
32. In the present case, the cancellation is not based merely
upon allegations of fraud or suppression of facts. The very basis of
cancellation is that residential pattas were issued in respect of land
which could not legally be used for residential purposes under the
Master Plan. Therefore, the impugned action falls squarely within the
expression “in contravention of law” employed in Section 73-B of the
Act of 2009. Once the authority discovered that the pattas had been
issued contrary to the statutory planning framework, it was not
merely empowered, but was duty-bound to rectify the illegality.
33. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is
equally untenable. The record demonstrates that show cause notice
dated 04.03.2026 was issued, the grounds of proposed cancellation
were specifically communicated, revealing therein that the land use
of the land in question is recorded as Green Area/Garden in the
Master Plan and Zonal Plan, where residential use is not permissible.
It was also mentioned in the notice that in the case of Gulab
Kothari (supra), the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat
Jodhpur, vide order dated 12.01.2017, held that change of land use
for any other purpose in areas earmarked as parks, open spaces,
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (12 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
playgrounds, recreational areas and eco-sensitive zones is
prohibited. Thus, the directions issued in the case of Gulab Kothari
(supra) and the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Urban
Areas (Permission for Use of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural
Purposes and Allotment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as
‘the Rules of 2012’) have been violated and the petitioner has
secured issuance of pattas, despite the fact that the said land was
reserved for Green Belt and Garden purposes. Therefore, in
pursuance of Rule 34 of the Rules of 2012 and Section 73-B of the
Act of 2009 (relating to revocation of allotment and cancellation of
lease deeds), the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why
the patta issued in his favour should not be cancelled.
34. Thereafter, reply dated 11.03.2026 to the above show
cause notice was submitted by the petitioner through his Advocate
contending therein that the allegation contained in the notice
regarding obtaining patta by concealing facts and/or by
misrepresentation was incorrect. The proceedings under Section 90-
A of the Act of 1956 were initiated suo-motu. After following the
entire prescribed legal procedure and completing all statutory
formalities, permission was granted for use of the said land for
residential purposes vide order dated 25.04.2023. The land was
vested in the Municipal Corporation and the layout plan was duly
approved. Thereafter, information regarding the said order was sent
to the Tehsildar (Revenue), Alwar, pursuant to which mutation
entries in respect of the aforesaid khasra numbers were opened in
favour of the respondent-authority and duly incorporated in the
revenue records (Jamabandi). As such, upon conducting a complete
inquiry and verification and after accepting the requisite charges
from the petitioner, patta was issued, which has also been duly
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (13 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Alwar. It was also
mentioned in the reply to the notice that the petitioner had instituted
a civil suit before the Court of the Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar, therefore,
during pendency of civil suit, no prejudicial action may be taken
against the petitioner.
35. It is matter of fact that the civil suit referred by the
petitioner in his reply to the notice has already been dismissed by
the Civil Court for want of jurisdiction vide order dated 30.04.2026
and copy thereof has been placed on record by the petitioner himself
along with writ petition as Annexure-17.
36. This Court further noticed that in the entire reply to the
show cause notice, it has nowhere been denied by the petitioner that
the land in question was falling in Green Belt in the Master Plan, nor
is there any such denial in the entire memo of writ petition.
37. After considering reply to the show cause notice,
impugned order dated 12.03.2026 has been passed by the
respondents observing therein that the District Collector, Alwar
constituted a committee to inquire into the matter. As per the report
submitted by the said Committee, the land use of the aforesaid land
is shown as Green Area/Garden in the Master Plan and Zonal Plan,
wherein residential use is not permissible in view of the judgment of
Gulab Kothari (supra), in which it has been held that change of
land use for other purposes in areas designated as green land is
prohibited. On the basis of the report of the inquiry committee,
notice dated 04.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner under Section
73-B of the Act of 2009, requiring him to submit an explanation
within seven days regarding the allegation that despite the land
being reserved as Green Belt and Garden Area, patta had been
obtained by securing approval under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (14 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
and approval of layout plans through concealment and
misrepresentation of facts. However, the explanation furnished by
the patta-holder was found to be unsatisfactory. It has also been
mentioned in the impugned order that while submitting the online
application, the petitioner-applicant deliberately concealed material
facts and described the land use of the plot as “residential”, whereas
the land use of the said khasra numbers was recorded as Green
Area/Garden in the Master Plan and Zonal Plan. It has also been
observed in the impugned order that Section 73-B of the Act of
2009, relating to revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease
deeds, provides that whether before or after execution and
registration of a lease deed in respect of land allotted on leasehold or
freehold basis, if at any time, the Municipality has reason to believe
that the allotment of land was obtained by misrepresentation of
facts, on the basis of false documents, through collusion, or in
contravention of law, and the lease deed has been executed on such
basis, it may, after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an
opportunity of hearing to the allottee, record reasons and revoke the
allotment and cancel the lease deed. The impugned order also takes
note of the fact that the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Rules of
2012 have also been violated. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009, the aforesaid patta
has been treated as void and ineffective from its very inception and
was accordingly cancelled/annulled with immediate effect.
38. Thus, this Court finds that procedure contemplated under
the statutory provisions and as well as principles of natural justice
have also been followed by the respondents before passing the
impugned order. Needless to observe that natural justice requires a
fair opportunity to meet the case against a person; it does not
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (15 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
guarantee acceptance of the defence raised by such person. The
requirement of procedural fairness having been satisfied, the
challenge on this count cannot be sustained.
39. In the case of Bannaram & Others (supra), co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur has held that
Muncipality has the statutory power to review and cancel a patta or
lease deed, even after registration of such document and it can be
revoked if it was obtained in contravention of the law. Following
pertinent part of the judgment is quoted as under :
“19. This Court also observes that it is clear that the
Legislature’s intention behind insertion of the Section 73-B of
the Act of 2009 was that it is necessary to prevent the illegal
allotment of the land and execution of lease deed, and thus,
powers were given to the concerned Municipal Body to issue
show cause notice to the person(s) concerned, and thereafter,
if the Municipal Body is satisfied that the allotment of the land
and issuance of patta and registration thereof was done, by
misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or
with collusion or in contravention of law, it can pass an order
for revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of
the land.
19.1. This Court holds that the review of the decision regarding
revocation/cancellation of the patta has to be permitted to be
gone into by the same authority who has registered such patta,
if the process, for the said purpose, as undertaken by him, was
pointed out to be suffering from misrepresentation of facts or
on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in
contravention of law, on the part of the person(s), who
obtained such patta.
20. This Court further observes that in the present case, the
impugned actions of the respondent authority regarding
issuance of the show cause notice and cancellation of pattas as
well as lease deeds of the petitioners are justified for the
foregoing reasons.
21. This Court thus holds that any lease deed/patta registered
shall be amenable to interference by the registering authority
itself on count of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of
false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, as
laid down in Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.”
40. Similar view has been taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Nar Singh (supra).
41. Even otherwise, the core fact regarding the Green Belt
status of the land remains undisputed. Since no authority could
legally permit residential use of Green Belt land, the petitioner has
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (16 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the procedure
adopted.
42. In the impugned order as well as in the notice preceded
by the impugned order, the authorities have relied upon the
judgment of Gulab Kothari (supra), in which following
observations and directions have been given by this Court:
“47. Having considered the rival submissions, the principal
questions arising for consideration of this Court in these PILs,
may be summarised thus:
(1) What is the ambit and scope of the power of the State
Government and the other authorities under the relevant
statutes as regard to preparation of the Master Development
Plan & Zonal Development Plan and modification/revision
thereof during their operative period ?
(2) Whether the peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological
zone, as the case may be, specified in the notified Master
Development Plan, a statutory instrument, form its basic
character/ feature, which cannot be altered and the land
forming part thereof cannot be permitted to be put to other
uses i.e. commercial/residential/institutional/industrial
purposes etc. during its operative period and thereafter, while
revising the Master Development Plan at the end of its tenure?
If the alteration/modification therein is permissible, what are
the parameters therefor ?
(3) Whether the authorities entrusted with the task of
revision/modification of Master Development Plan/Zonal
Development Plan can do away with/alter the minimum
requirement of green area/open spaces/parks/ recreational
area as provided for under the Master Development Plan/Zonal
Development Plan with reference to the population at the
relevant time and projected increase therein and put the same
to the use for the purposes other than those specified during its
operative period ?
(4) XXXXXX
48. Master Development Plan is prepared with an objective to
ensure systematic and planned development of a city and
adjoining areas with a view to protect the residents from ill-
effects of urbanisation as also to create sustainable physical
and social environment for improving their quality of life. It lays
down the planning, guidelines, policies, development code,
space requirement for various socio economic activities
supporting the city population during the plan period. As a
matter of fact, Master Development Plan translates community
values, decisions and visions into land use and development
principles which can guide the future growth of community and
decision making for planning authorities and implementation
thereof by local authorities.
69. Thus, undoubtedly, the Master Development Plan or the
Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, finally
sanctioned, after undertaking intensive consultation process
involving experts drawn from various disciplines and other
stake holders, for systematic and planned development of the
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (17 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
city and adjoining areas are democratically prepared planning
documents expressing the community desire to develop
physically, economically and socially and therefore, its binding
effect and inviolability could be well understood.
87. Thus, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that
the Master Plan, which is a policy document for guiding the
future development of the city or town in the planned manner
and to arrest undesirable and unplanned growth, is not a static
document, which cannot be modified or revised as and when
considered necessary in the larger public interest in furtherance
of planned development of the urban area in respect whereof it
is made operative. But then, the Master Development Plan
prepared to master the future development in the city or town
democratically, after due deliberation and consideration of
suggestions and objections from the public at large, cannot be
permitted to be set at naught at the whim and fancy of the
authority concerned just to serve the interest of individuals.
Obviously, the object of the planned development shall be
achieved by rigorous and successful implementation of the
Master Development Plan and not by deviation therefrom with
impunity. 88. We are firmly of the opinion that once the Master
Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant
implementation thereof should be the rule and any deviation
therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with
the Authority or the State Government for modification thereof
should be exercised sparingly in furtherance of the planned
development in the larger public interest and not otherwise.
The status of peripheral control belt /green
belt/ecological zone specified in the notified Master
Development Plan, permissibility of use of the land
forming part of peripheral control belt/ecological
zone/green belt specified in the Master Development
Plan for the purposes other than those specified during
its operative period and thereafter, at the time of
revision thereof at the end of its tenure and further the
scope of alteration/modification thereof (Question No.2)
89. The issue whether the peripheral control belt/green belt/
ecological zone, specified in the notified Master Plan, a
statutory instrument forms basic character/ feature of the
Master Plan, which cannot be altered and land forming part
thereof cannot be put to other uses i.e. residential, commercial,
institutional and industrial purposes etc., has been a most
contentious issue in these PILs.
102. In Yashwant Sharma’s case (supra), while dealin with the
issue regarding respondents’ allowing indiscriminate
urbanisation and exploitation of the ecological zone, the court
did not interfere with the change of land use made by the State
Government on JDA giving the undertaking to develop the
ecological zone by setting apart 200 bighas of land for the said
purpose in lieu of the land taken out from the demarcated use
for ecological zone in the Master Plan to rehabilitate slum
dwellers. But, at the same time, the court warned the JDA not
to amend the Master Plan casually in future unless and until, it
is necessarily warranted to modify the Master Development
Plan, that too, in the limited scope. Thus, ignoring the
directions of this court, the change of the land use of such a
huge area forming part of ecological zone for residential and
mixed user by the respondents, cannot be countenanced by
this court.
103. As a matter of fact, the fundamental object of providing
ecological zone or green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (18 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
keeping the land permanently open so as to protect natural or
semi natural environment; improve air quality within the urban
area and to ensure the lung spaces for the inhabitants of the
urban area. In other words, the permanent openness is the
most important attribute of ecological zone/green belt and for
this reason, while designating the land use in such area, the
care is taken that it remains largely undeveloped and only eco
friendly development not affecting the natural and healthful
environment comes up within the area. In the considered
opinion of this court, the green belt/ecological zone specified in
the Master Development Plan in furtherance of welfare of the
inhabitants of the area forms basic feature of the Master
Development Plan, which once established, is not permissible to
be altered even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or
the preparation of the new Plan. Even the area which is shown
in the various Master Plans as Green Zone/Area (G2) abutting
G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 is
permissible to be used for the activities other than those
specified only in exceptional circumstances in the interest of the
general public and not otherwise to serve an individual interest.
126. Keeping in view the authoritative pronouncements of the
Apex Court as aforesaid, the issue that the land specifically
earmarked as open spaces, common facilities, parks,
playgrounds and recreation grounds etc. in the Master
Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, cannot be
diverted to the use other than those specified, does not require
further dilation. In the considered opinion of this Court, besides
eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, the reservation
and preservation of the land as green cover i.e. parks, open
spaces, playgrounds etc. provided for protecting the residents
of the city from ill-effects of urbanisation and to ensure
healthful environment certainly forms part of basic character of
the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and
therefore, the land use specified for the said purpose cannot be
permitted to be altered to subserve an individual interest as
against the community interest in preserving the same.
205. In the result, having regard to the aforesaid conclusions
arrived at, we issue the following directions:
(i) The Development Authorities and the State Government
shall ensure that Master Development Plan of a city or town
prepared under the relevant statutes is a comprehensive and
self explanatory document providing for preservation,
conservation and development of eco-sensitive zone/ecological
zone/green area, peripheral control belt, natural scenery, city
forest, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping as also
allocation of land for different uses such as residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural complexes, tourist
complexes, open spaces, garden, recreation centres,
amusement parks, zoological gardens, animal sanctuaries,
dairies and health resorts etc.
(ii) xxxx
(iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal
Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all
development schemes of the various zones and the
development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or
private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative
period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified
under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development
Plan, as the case may be.
(iv) xxxx
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (19 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
(v) The eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area specified
in the Master Development Plan once established shall not be
altered or put to other uses during the operative period of the
Plan and even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or
preparation of the new Plan.”
43. The contention that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser
also does not merit acceptance. The petitioner’s own pleadings
disclose that the agreement to sell was executed on 02.12.2022,
whereas the order passed under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 was
passed subsequently on 25.04.2023. Thus, the claim that the
petitioner entered into the transaction on the basis of conversion
proceedings is factually incorrect. The petitioner consciously entered
into the transaction prior to the alleged regularisation and now
cannot claim equities founded upon subsequent administrative
actions.
44. Furthermore, it is a settled proposition that a transferee
can acquire no better title than that possessed by the transferor. If
the conversion proceedings themselves were void and incapable of
creating legal rights, the petitioner cannot claim any superior or
independent right merely on account of having purchased the
property. The doctrine of bona fide purchase cannot be invoked to
validate a transaction founded upon an illegality. Similarly, the
principles of estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot operate
against a statute or compel a public authority to perpetuate an
action contrary to law.
45. The argument founded upon Article 300A of the
Constitution of India is equally misconceived. Article 300A of the
Constitution of India protects a person against deprivation of
property save by authority of law. The constitutional protection does
not extend to preservation of rights created in violation of law. In the
present case, the impugned action emanates directly from statutory
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (20 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
provisions and seeks to annul patta found to have been issued in
contravention of the governing legal framework. Consequently, the
action is clearly supported by authority of law and does not infringe
Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
46. The prayer seeking deletion of the subject land from the
Green Belt is also wholly misconceived. Judicial review is concerned
with the decision-making process and not with substituting the
wisdom of planning authorities in matters involving urban planning
and land use policy. Determination of whether a particular area
should be retained as Green Belt or converted for residential use or
subjected to any other land use falls squarely within the domain of
expert statutory authorities. In the absence of any challenge to the
validity of the Master Plan itself, no direction can be issued by this
Court requiring alteration of land use classification.
47. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner has failed to
establish that the impugned orders suffer from lack of jurisdiction,
violation of natural justice, perversity, arbitrariness or any manifest
error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. On the contrary, the material on record demonstrates that the
authorities have acted to rectify an illegality which had the effect of
permitting residential use of land reserved as Green Belt under a
statutory Master Plan. Interference by this Court in such
circumstances would amount to perpetuating an illegality and
defeating the very object of planned urban development.
48. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is
satisfied that the impugned orders do not suffer from any
jurisdictional error, perversity, arbitrariness or violation of principles
of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. On the contrary, the impugned actions seek to
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (21 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
rectify an illegality which had the effect of permitting residential use
of land reserved as Green Belt under a statutory Master Plan.
Interference by this Court in such circumstances would amount to
perpetuating an illegality and defeating the object of planned urban
development.
49. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The writ
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
50. However, before parting, it is pertinent to note that the
facts of the present case also disclose a matter of grave concern
which cannot be ignored by this Court while exercising its writ
jurisdiction. The material available on record demonstrates that
proceedings for change of land use, regularisation and consequential
issuance of residential pattas were undertaken in respect of land
which admittedly formed part of the Green Belt under the notified
Master Plan. Such actions were not the result of a mere procedural
irregularity, but strike at the very foundation of statutory town
planning and urban development laws. The Master Plan is a statutory
instrument having binding force and every authority functioning
under the municipal and urban development framework is duty-
bound to act in conformity therewith.
51. What is particularly disturbing is that the concerned
officers, despite being custodians of official records and being under
a legal obligation to verify the land use prescribed under the Master
Plan, proceeded to recommend and approve conversion and
regularisation proceedings by recording observations that the
proposed use was permissible and in accordance with the applicable
planning framework. Such actions could not have been taken without
knowledge of the true status of the land. The record prima facie
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (22 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
indicates either gross dereliction of duty of the highest order or a
deliberate and conscious attempt to circumvent statutory provisions.
In either eventuality, the conduct cannot be accepted in law.
52. This Court is of the considered opinion that permitting
public officials to escape accountability in such circumstances would
erode public confidence in the administration of urban planning laws
and would encourage misuse of statutory powers. Green Belt areas
constitute vital ecological and environmental assets of a city and
their protection is not merely a statutory obligation, but also a
constitutional imperative flowing from the principles underlying
Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Any attempt
to dilute or defeat such protection through unauthorised
administrative actions must be dealt with firmly.
53. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan,
in co-ordination with the Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan, to identify all officers, who were involved
at various stages in processing, recommending, approving or
facilitating the proceedings relating to conversion of land use,
regularisation and issuance of pattas in respect of the subject land. A
departmental enquiry shall be initiated against such officers in
accordance with the applicable service rules after affording them due
opportunity of hearing. The competent authority shall examine
whether the actions of the concerned officials were the result of
negligence, misconduct, abuse of authority, collusion or any other
conduct warranting disciplinary action and shall proceed in
accordance with law.
54. A compliance report indicating the steps taken pursuant to
the aforesaid directions shall be placed before this Court within a
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26591] (23 of 23) [CW-9036/2026]
period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. It is clarified that the disciplinary proceedings shall be
conducted independently on the basis of the material available on
record and after following due process of law.
55. Writ petition is dismissed, however, with the aforesaid
directions.
56. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI/
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 03:22:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
