Rajasthan HC Upholds Cancellation of Residential Patta on Alwar Green Belt Land, Orders Departmental Inquiry Against Officers

A residential patta issued over Alwar green belt land under Master Plan 2031 was void from inception; the High Court dismissed the writ and directed action against officials who approved the conversion.

The Rajasthan High Court at its Jaipur Bench has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a residential patta over land at Alwar that formed part of the Green Belt under Master Plan 2031. Justice Anand Sharma, sitting singly, held that the Section 90-A proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the consequential patta were void ab initio because no authority could lawfully permit residential use of land designated as green belt in a notified Master Plan. The court went further, directing the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan to identify all officers involved in processing, recommending, and approving the conversion and to initiate departmental enquiries against them within the framework of applicable service rules. A compliance report is to be placed before the court within three months of receipt of the judgment.

The Property and Its History

The land in question is part of a property known as “Diwan Ji Ka Bagh” at Alwar. The petitioner, Vikas Modi, claimed that it had been declared private property by the Additional Jagir Commissioner in 1961, and that rights passed through a series of transactions — gift deed, agreement to sell, testamentary succession, and release deed — to Shri Arun Kumar and Shri Mudit Jain before he purchased a portion.

The State's version traced a different trajectory. A notification under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was issued on 07.04.1978 to acquire the land for an Urban Improvement Trust residential-cum-commercial scheme. The then owner, Smt. Sushila Devi, opposed the acquisition on the ground that the land was being used as an orchard. By a letter dated 09.09.1986, the Deputy Secretary to the Government wrote to the Secretary, UIT, Alwar that since the land had vested in the State after the Section 52(1) notification, it would be re-allotted to the owner on a 99-year lease at a token rent of Rs. 100 per year — but with a strict condition that if the land was put to any use other than orchard, it would revert to UIT free from all encumbrances.

The petitioner's own documents placed on record — a registration certificate from the District Industries Centre, a certificate from the Commercial Tax Officer, and a licence for running a small-scale industry — showed that commercial and industrial activities had been carried out on the land, in direct violation of the orchard-only condition. The court found that on the face of this material, the land was bound to have reverted to UIT.

The Section 90-A Proceedings and Patta Issuance

Despite this history, proceedings under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 were initiated and culminated in an order dated 25.04.2023. That order recorded that the proposed residential use of the land was in conformity with the Master Plan. The court found this statement to be factually wrong: the land's khasra numbers fell squarely within the Green Belt as recorded in Master Plan 2031, a fact confirmed by a communication dated 22.09.2022 from the competent planning authority that the petitioner himself had relied upon in his own pleadings.

Following the Section 90-A order, the Municipal Corporation, Alwar issued residential pattas. The petitioner claimed to have purchased a portion of the land on the basis of revenue entries and the patta issued after accepting conversion charges. His agreement to sell, however, was executed on 02.12.2022 — over four months before the Section 90-A order of 25.04.2023.

A show cause notice dated 04.03.2026 was then issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Alwar, alleging that the land formed part of the green belt and garden area under Master Plan 2031 and Zonal Plan, and that the patta had been obtained in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Permission for Use of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes and Allotment) Rules, 2012 and in violation of the directions in Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/2004, decided 12.01.2017). After receiving a reply from the petitioner's advocate dated 11.03.2026, the Commissioner passed an order dated 12.03.2026 cancelling the patta under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. Separately, the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department declared all Section 90-A proceedings void ab initio by order dated 20.04.2026.

The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Legal Issues Before the Court

Three principal issues emerged. First, whether proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 permitting residential use could survive when the land was admittedly part of the Green Belt under a notified Master Plan. Second, whether Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 empowered the Municipal Corporation to cancel a registered patta. Third, whether the petitioner could claim the status of a bona fide purchaser and invoke Article 300A of the Constitution, as well as principles of natural justice, estoppel, and legitimate expectation.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Anand Sharma held that a notified Master Plan is not an advisory document. It is a statutory instrument with binding force on every authority dealing with land use, conversion, regularisation, or grant of pattas. Any administrative action permitting residential or commercial use of green belt land does not amount to a mere irregular exercise of power; it defeats the object of the planning legislation altogether.

The order under Section 90-A dated 25.04.2023 was described by the court as having been passed on an “incorrect statement, contrary to the record, mischievously recorded.” Since that order was the foundation of all subsequent regularisation and patta issuance, its invalidity brought down the entire chain. The court applied the settled principle that where a foundational action is without jurisdiction, all consequential actions automatically collapse.

On Section 73-B of the Act of 2009, the court held that the provision specifically empowers the Municipality to revisit and cancel allotments, lease deeds, and pattas obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, collusion, or in contravention of law — even after registration. The legislative intent is clear: registration cannot become a shield for perpetuating an illegality. In the present case, the cancellation did not rest on fraud alone; the pattas had been issued for land that could not legally carry residential use under the Master Plan, which fell squarely within the expression “in contravention of law” in Section 73-B.

The natural justice challenge was rejected. A show cause notice had been issued on 04.03.2026 specifically communicating the green belt status of the land and the relevant legal provisions. A reply was submitted and considered. The court reiterated that natural justice requires a fair opportunity to meet the case; it does not guarantee acceptance of the defence.

The bona fide purchaser argument failed on the facts. The petitioner's agreement to sell was dated 02.12.2022, predating the Section 90-A order of 25.04.2023 by several months. He could not therefore claim to have acted in reliance on the regularisation proceedings. Even if he had, a transferee cannot acquire a better title than the transferor holds, and the doctrine of bona fide purchase cannot validate a transaction founded on an illegality.

The Article 300A argument was equally rejected. The constitutional protection against deprivation of property without authority of law does not extend to rights created in violation of law. The cancellation was directly backed by Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 and was therefore supported by authority of law.

The court also refused the prayer to delete the land from the Green Belt, holding that substitution of judicial wisdom for that of expert planning authorities in land use matters is beyond the scope of Article 226 review. In the absence of any challenge to the validity of the Master Plan itself, no direction could be issued altering the land use classification.

The court relied on the Division Bench decision in Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan (order dated 12.01.2017) for the proposition that green belt and ecological zones form a basic feature of the Master Development Plan that cannot be altered during its operative period or even upon revision to serve individual interests. It also followed co-ordinate Bench decisions in Bannaram & Others v. Municipal Board, Nokha & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10570/2023, decided 12.09.2023) and Nar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12743/2023, decided 21.09.2023), which had affirmed the Municipality's power to cancel a registered patta under Section 73-B.

Departmental Inquiry Directed Against Approving Officers

Beyond dismissing the writ petition, the court expressed concern about the conduct of the officials who had processed and approved the conversion and regularisation proceedings. The court found that those officers, as custodians of official records and under a legal obligation to verify the Master Plan's land use designations, had proceeded to recommend and approve conversion by recording that the proposed residential use was permissible — when the land was plainly in the Green Belt. The court observed that such actions indicated either gross dereliction of duty or a deliberate attempt to circumvent statutory provisions.

The court linked the protection of green belt land to Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, characterising it as both a statutory obligation and a constitutional imperative. Allowing public officials to escape accountability, the court said, would erode public confidence in urban planning administration and encourage misuse of statutory powers.

Accordingly, the court directed the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, in coordination with the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, to identify all officers involved at various stages in processing, recommending, approving, or facilitating the conversion of land use, regularisation, and patta issuance in respect of the subject land. The competent authority is to examine whether the conduct of those officials constituted negligence, misconduct, abuse of authority, collusion, or any other conduct warranting disciplinary action, and is to proceed in accordance with law after affording each officer due opportunity of hearing. A compliance report is to be placed before the High Court within three months of receipt of the judgment.

Outcome

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9036/2026 was dismissed. All pending applications were disposed of. The cancellation order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Alwar under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Director and Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department declaring the Section 90-A proceedings void ab initio were upheld. The directions for departmental inquiry and a compliance report within three months were issued simultaneously with the dismissal.