SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14911

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Munnuri Laxman, J
Supertech Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9997/2024|9988/2024|10016/2024|10017/2024|10065/2024|10054/2024|10074/2024|10049/2024|10047/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin Acharya, Samyak Dalal, J.S.Saluja, Vedant Agrwal, Pranjul Mehta
For the Respondents: Vijay Purohit, Ayush Gehlot, Rajesh Panwar, Shubham Ojha

Administrative authorities must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, including the issuance of specific show-cause notices and disclosure of material evidence, before cancelling land layouts or lease deeds. Exercise of such power without observing natural justice and statutory conditions is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 90-B - Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975 - Rule 12 - Urban Development Authority Act, 2023 - Section 52 - Cancellation of layout plan and lease deeds - Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness - Proper issuance of show-cause notice is mandatory under Section 52(2) for cancellation - Administrative action must be based on objective findings rather than undisclosed internal reports - Judicial review of administrative cancellation. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 31)

(B) Administrative Law - Power to rescind or amend orders - Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 - Section 23 - Authority possesses power to modify or rescind schemes, but such power must be exercised with due regard to statutory conditions and fair procedure - Failure to provide specific show-cause notice and reliance on ex-parte evidence vitiates order. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of converted agricultural land, obtained approval for group housing layout plans. Subsequently, the authority cancelled these approvals, alleging sub-division violations, contravention of area ratio requirements, and lack of mandatory space for specific housing categories. The authority relied on an internal enquiry report and invoked powers to cancel allotments and lease deeds in the interest of public regulation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under the governing act. The notices provided were insufficient, lacked specific grounds, and failed to grant adequate time for response. Furthermore, the reliance on an internal enquiry report without disclosure to the affected parties violated principles of natural justice. The court also clarified that prior state sanction for sub-division was not required for the plots in question and the specific ratio requirements cited by the respondents were inapplicable to the group housing scheme at hand.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of layout plans and lease deeds was sustainable in light of the failure to issue proper show-cause notices and the misinterpretation of statutory building and development policy regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority's power to cancel land allotments and layout plans under statutory provisions is not absolute and is subject to strict adherence to procedural fairness. The failure to provide a clear, reasoned show-cause notice and the suppression of foundational reports used for adverse findings constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the administrative action legally unsustainable.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned cancellation orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background of the dispute regarding cancellation of group housing layout plans. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 24)
2. petitioner's arguments on procedural fairness, section 52 of the 2023 act, and regulatory compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. respondent's contentions regarding violation of township policy 2010 and rules of 1975. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. adherence to procedural requirements and natural justice under section 52(2) of the 2023 act. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. merits of layout approval, applicability of township policy 2010, and ratio requirements. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. conclusion setting aside the impugned cancellation orders due to legal and procedural infirmities. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 26/05/2025

(CWP No.10054/2025 was reserved on 10/07/2025)

Judgment Pronounced on : 29/08/2025

Corrected Judgment pursuant to the modification/ clarification application and the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No.367/2025 & 382/2025

1. This order disposes of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9997/2024, 9988/2024, 10016/2024, 10017/2024, 10065/2024, 10054/2024, 10074/2024, 10049/2024 and 10047/2024.

2. The challenge in the above writ petitions pertains to orders dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Udaipur Development Authority, whereby layout approval dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023 in favour of the writ petitioners have been cancelled.

3. The facts in all 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 passed in the year 2007-2008. The layout plans were approved by the Urban Improvement Trust of Udaipur. The approved layout plans were prepared large plot-wise for group housing purposes. During the Prashaasan Shaharo Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021–2023, the petitioners made applications for approval of fresh demarcated plans demarcating large plots into small group housing plots. The said demarcated plans were approved by the Layout Plan Committee, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2023/25.07.2023. Subsequently, the allotment letters were issued and lease deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners.

4. The Udaipur Development Authority passed its decision dated 29.05.2024 cancelling the approval of demarcated map and consequently allotment letters and execution of sale-deeds were kept in abeyance and notices for cancellation of allotment and lease deed were issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

5. The cancellation of the layout plan was primarily based on the ground of sub-division of the originally approved large group housing plots into smaller group housing plots. Subsequently, approved layout plans for group housing were 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 demarcated plans are over and above prescribed ratio allowing such a saleable area over and above the ratio are contrary to the Township Policy, 2010. The third ground was the absence of any provision in the approved 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 than 3000 Sq. Mtrs. cannot be permitted without the sanction of the State Governme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top