The reported scrapping of the Sikar Master Plan 2041 has triggered questions over the future of planned development in the city and 38 villages, with Congress state chief Govind Singh Dotasra seeking the reasons for the decision and accountability for the public money spent on preparing the plan.
Speaking to the media in Sikar on Sunday, Dotasra said the Rajasthan government should make the reasons for scrapping the plan public. He said between Rs 4.5 crore and Rs 5 crore had been paid to the Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT) to prepare the master plan.
Dotasra asked the government to clarify who would be responsible for the expenditure if the plan had been discontinued and how quickly a replacement plan would be prepared. The questions place the cost and timeline of Sikar’s next planning exercise at the centre of the dispute.
According to the report, the master plan was prepared during the previous Congress government’s tenure and a notification was issued. After the Bharatiya Janata Party government came to power, Urban Development and Autonomous Governance Minister Jhabar Singh Kharra published the draft of Master Plan 2041 on August 25, 2025.
The draft publication was followed by an invitation for objections and suggestions from the public. Dotasra claimed that around 5,000 objections were received after the draft was published, but that the process of examining and disposing of them did not move forward.
He said the government subsequently decided to scrap the master plan. The report did not provide the state government’s stated reasons for the decision, nor did it specify whether a formal replacement plan, revised planning process or new consultant had been announced.
A master plan generally establishes the framework for land use, urban expansion, transport links, public facilities and development controls. For Sikar and the 38 villages linked to the planning area, uncertainty over the status of the 2041 plan could affect how future growth and development applications are assessed. The immediate administrative question is whether existing planning provisions remain applicable while a new plan is prepared.
The objections process is also significant because the reported 5,000 submissions represent public responses to the proposed development framework. Dotasra’s criticism focuses not only on the decision to discontinue the plan but also on the lack of clarity over how those objections were handled before the decision was taken.
The matter now awaits an official explanation from the Rajasthan government on the reasons for scrapping the plan, the treatment of public objections, responsibility for the MNIT expenditure and the timeline for preparing the next master plan.
