Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2598
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sunil Beniwal, J.
Govind Agarwal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Ji Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4675 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18007 of 2022
Decided On : 17-12-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with, Mr. Harsh Mehta, Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Mr. Rahul Mehta, Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. Chirag Kalani
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajersh Panwar, Sr.Adv.-cum-AAG with Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur & Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Mr. Vijay Purohit.
The court affirmed that mapping errors impacting property rights must be rectified to ensure correct zoning classifications align with legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Urban Development & Housing Act - Zonal Development Plan - Master Plan-2031 - Petitioners sought correction of their land's classification from G-1 zone to G-2 zone due to a discrepancy in the land use map - UIT acknowledged the error but delayed rectification, compelling judicial intervention. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Environmental Law - The balance between environmental concerns and individual property rights - The court emphasized that errors in land mapping that infringe upon the rightful use of property must be corrected to uphold justice. (Paras 12.1-12.4)
(C) Judicial Review - The court recognized limited grounds for interference in zoning matters but asserted its role where procedural impropriety is evident. (Paras 8.2-8.4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owning agricultural land in Udaipur seek to convert it for hotel/resort development but face zoning restrictions due to errors in mapping, which misclassify their land. They have presented multiple representations to rectify the error, which has been acknowledged by UIT but not acted upon timely. (Paras 2.1-2.10)
Findings of Court:
The petitioners' land, by virtue of being beyond the prescribed distance from the lake, should be classified under G-2 zone, necessitating amendments to the Master Plan-2031 accordingly. (Paras 16-16.1)
Issues: The pivotal concern was whether the land of petitioners could be reclassified from G-1 to G-2 zone based on factual inaccuracies in mapping. (Paras 8-8.4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted the importance of accurate zoning classification and the right to property, emphasizing that procedural errors warrant corrective action to ensure just outcomes. (Paras 12-14)
Result: SB CWP No. 18007 of 2022 is allowed; State Government directed to correct the land use map within a month. SB CWP No. 4675 of 2023 is disposed of with directives for investigation and correction based on findings. (Paras 16-18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and representation overview. (Para 1) |
| 2. discrepancy in land use map and petitions. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments from petitioners regarding zoning. (Para 3) |
| 4. counterarguments from respondents against petitions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 5. court's analysis of the facts and applicable law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. decision based on land classification. (Para 16) |
| 7. court's order for corrections and compliance. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
1. Before examining the issue raised in the present writ petitions on its merits, it would be appropriate to highlight the manner in which the matter has proceeded before this Court.
1.1 The writ petition being SB CWP No.18007/2022 (Piyush Maru & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was first listed on 02.01.2023. On the said date, Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal appeared on an advance copy being served by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that he would serve copy of the writ petition to Mr. Rajesh Parihar, who usually appeared for the respondents No.1 & 2. Considering the submissions made, the Court recorded the presence of the counsel appearing for the then Urban Improvement Trust (‘UIT’) and also ordered the matter to be listed on 19.01.2023 directing to reflect the name of Mr. Rajesh Parihar as counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 – Urban Development & Housing Department so also the name of Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal as counsel for the respondent No.3 – UIT, in the cause list.
1.2 Subsequently, another writ petition being SBCWP No.4675/2023 (Govind Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) came to be filed and on 12.04.2023, it was ordered to connect the present writ petition along with SBCWP No.4675/2023. It is noted that subsequent thereto, the present writ petition as well as writ petition bearing SBCWP No.4675/2023 have been listed and heard together.
1.3 It is also noted from the order-sheet dated 28.08.2023 that there was some issue with regard to the counsel engaged by the UIT and the State. It is further noted that Mr. Vijay Purohit, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the UIT and submitted that he is having instructions to appear on behalf of the UIT as well as State Government. At the same time Mr. Rajesh Parihar contended that he is having instructions to appear on behalf of the State Government. Later, an affidavit was sought from the Deputy Legal Remembrances to clarify the situation with regard to the counsel, who would be representing the State Government. Thereafter, the issue was sorted out and it was noted that Mr. Rajesh Parihar would be appearing on behalf of the State Government and Mr.Vijay Purohit would be appearing on behalf of the UIT.
1.4 Both the writ petitions were listed on 22.08.2024 and learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made a request that the petitioners’ grievance would be substantially redressed, in case, the UIT / State Government, whosoever is competent, is directed to amend / modify the Zonal Development Plan in furtherance of the Notification dated 27.12.2022 issued by the State Government. Considering such submission, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the competent authority of the respondents to issue modified / amended Zonal Development Plan in compliance of the Notification dated 27.12.2022, in accordance with law. For doing the needful four weeks’ time was granted.
1.5 The matters were again taken up on 22.11.2024, wherein learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – UIT submitted that the matter was referred to the State Government for making necessary corrections. However, the State Government has sent the matter back to the respondent – UIT for undertaking the corrections at its own level, after coming into force of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023. It was submitted that on account of the above fact, the compliance of the order dated 22.08.2024 could not be made and further submitted
