A Drafting Error Cannot Override Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan High Court Directs Correction In Udaipur Master Plan–2031 To Uphold Property Rights

“When the Master Plan defines G-1 zone as within 100 metres from the Full Tank Level, a parcel of land located 129 to 150 metres away cannot be dragged into eco-sensitive classification due to a cartographic mistake” – Rajasthan High Court came down strongly against arbitrary administrative conduct that led to incorrect land use classification in the Udaipur Master Plan–2031. Holding that the erroneous inclusion of the petitioners’ land in the highly restricted Green Zone-1 (G-1) was unsupported by law, fact, or notification, the Court directed the State Government to rectify the land use map within one month.

This landmark ruling, rendered by Justice Sunil Beniwal, not only reasserts the limited scope of judicial review in town planning matters but clarifies that courts will not remain passive when procedural impropriety, arbitrary action, or deprivation of constitutional rights such as the right to property under Article 300-A is at stake.

“Right to Property under Article 300-A cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a mapping error”

Petitioners Had Land Beyond Eco-Sensitive Limits – But Map Showed Otherwise

The petitioners, who jointly own agricultural land in Village Sisarma, Udaipur, challenged the classification of their land as falling under G-1 zone in the proposed land use map annexed to the Master Plan–2031. As per Clause 5.6.2 of the Plan, G-1 covers land up to 100 metres from the Full Tank Level (FTL) of lakes like Fatehsagar. However, the petitioners’ land was situated 129 to 150 metres from the lake, a fact confirmed through official contour maps and reports dating back to 2019.

Despite this, the proposed land use map continued to show the land as part of G-1 zone, thereby prohibiting construction activities such as building a resort, which would otherwise be permitted in Green Zone-2 (G-2) under Clause 5.6.3.

Notably, the Udaipur Improvement Trust (UIT), now renamed Udaipur Development Authority (UDA), had admitted the discrepancy and repeatedly recommended correction in official reports dated 19.06.2019, 09.12.2021, and 11.11.2022. The State Government itself had issued directions to UIT on 11.01.2022 permitting correction of such drafting errors at the Zonal Development Plan level, but the authorities inexplicably changed their stand later and began defending the error.

“A Drafting Error Does Not Create Zoning Law: If the Plan Says 100 Metres, a 150-Metre Plot Cannot be Declared G-1 Just by Colour on a Map”

Court Criticises Arbitrary Administrative Flip-Flops

Justice Beniwal minced no words in criticising the State and UDA for their shifting stands. “The conduct of the authorities is not appreciable,” the Court observed, pointing out that the same agencies which had previously supported the correction later filed a recalling application, contradicting their earlier affidavits and reports.

The Court held:

“The UIT has time and again supported the petitioners’ stand... It is only while filing the recalling application that it changed its stand... This is nothing but an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.”

Referring to the admitted facts, the Court held that none of the three preconditions for land to fall within G-1 zone—(i) being within 100m of FTL; (ii) specific government notification; or (iii) court direction—was satisfied.

The Court clarified that the legal question was not about whether the land should be rezoned, but whether the map accurately reflected the definition already contained in the Master Plan itself.

The State’s attempt to invoke general directions issued in Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan (2017) was rejected outright. The Court noted that petitioners were not seeking policy change, but mere rectification of a proven factual error, distinguishing this case from those seeking relaxation of green zoning norms.

“The petitioners are not seeking a change in planning policy; rather, they are drawing support from Clause 5.6.2 of the Master Plan itself,” the Court stated.

Similarly, reliance on earlier directions issued in Rajendra Kumar Razdan v. State of Rajasthan was found to be misplaced, as the 200-metre eco-sensitive buffer mentioned in an interim order was not part of the final judgment, nor codified in any statutory notification.

“Administrative error cannot override constitutional protection under Article 300-A”

Judicial Review Allowed Where Procedural Impropriety and Constitutional Violation Proven

While reiterating that judicial review in town planning is limited, the Court held that such review is warranted in cases of procedural impropriety or arbitrary action. Citing Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1102], the Court noted that factual errors in planning documents can be corrected by courts without infringing on executive domain.

Relying also on B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India [(2014) 12 SCC 172], the Court said: “Incorrect zoning depriving petitioners of lawful use of land cannot be sustained, as it results in unjust deprivation of property in violation of Article 300-A.”

Correction Must Be Carried Out Within One Month

Accordingly, the Court allowed SB CWP No. 18007/2022 and directed the State Government to carry out correction in the land use map within one month and reflect the same in the Zonal Development Plan.

In the connected petition SB CWP No. 4675/2023, where the petitioner claimed similar grievance, the Court directed the UDA to inspect the land’s distance from FTL within 15 days, and if found beyond G-1 radius and not restricted otherwise, forward a report to the State, which shall then rectify the classification within a further period of one month.

The Court categorically rejected the recalling application filed by the State and UDA, terming it a misuse of process and a backdoor attempt to reverse admitted positions without any legal basis.

This judgment by the Rajasthan High Court stands out as a powerful assertion of constitutional rights and administrative accountability in town planning matters. It reaffirms that while policy decisions are the State’s domain, courts will intervene where rule of law, due process, and constitutional guarantees are compromised by inaction, contradiction, or arbitrariness.

The ruling is also significant for future landowners facing similar bureaucratic errors, serving as a precedent for rectification of map-based mistakes in Master Plans, and for ensuring that land use classifications remain tied to law and fact—not just colour codes on maps.

Date of Decision: 17 December 2025