Master Plan Has Statutory Force; Authorities Can't Permit Land Conversion Contrary To It: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a land is notified in the Master Plan as a 'Green Belt', every authority exercising powers relating to land use, conversion, regularization, allotment of pattas, etc. is bound to act within the four corners of the Master Plan and any action contrary to the same would be illegal and liable to be quashed.

“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…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 unauthorized administrative actions must be dealt with firmly.”

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a writ petition that revealed wrongful exercise of powers under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (the “Act”) that allowed conversion of use of land which was otherwise forming part of a Green Belt under a Master Plan.

For context, the petitioner alleged to be a bona-fide purchaser of a land in relation to which he had received a show cause notice contending that the land formed part of a green belt under Master Plan 2031. It was also contended in the notice that the pattas that were obtained were contrary to law, and the proceeding under Section 90A of the Act were declared void-ab-initio.

The petitioner had challenged the powers exercised by the concerned authority under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, that cancelled the pattas that were issued after the proceedings under Section 90A of the Act, and declared those proceedings void ab initio.

The petitioners' arguments included him being a bona fide purchaser; violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution, and estoppel on the State after providing pattas under Section 90A.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that once the land was shown as a Green Belt under the Master Plan, the legal consequences were unavoidable. It was held that any administrative action had to be in accordance with the Master Plan, which carried a statutory force, and any action in contravention to the same was illegal and liable to be set aside.

“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 utilization 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.”

The Court highlighted that the order of conversion under Section 90A was contrary to the Master Plan, and hence was void and unenforceable in law. Hence, all consequential actions based on such foundation also collapsed. The Pattas that were issued pursuant to such conversion order could not acquire any independent or superior legal status.

Further, it was opined that a registered document could not sanctify an action would was void at its inception.

“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…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 Court further opined that the doctrine of bona fide purchaser could not be invoked to validate an illegal transaction. Similarly, principle of estoppel could not operate against a statue or compel a public authority to perpetuate an action contrary to law.

The Court also rejected the argument of violation of Article 300A and held that the constitutional protection did not extend to preservation of rights created in violation of law.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284

Click Here To Read/Download Order