JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application filed by the petitioner on July 6, 1987 before the District Collector Sawaimadhopur under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment Conversion Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps) Rules 1978 framed under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956. 2. The petitioner's case is that he is engaged in business of organising Wild Life Tourism and is also promotor and Managing Director of M/E Dynamic Tours and Travel (P.) Ltd with its Head Office at New Delhi. The petitioner wanted to extend his business activities and decided to set up a Hotel at Sawaimadhopur and for that purpose he purchased a piece of agriculture land of Barani-2 category measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in Khasra No. 30 on Khandar - Sawaimadhopur Road in village Bodal Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur from its khatedar Dhanna Gujar vide sale-deed duly registered on 12.5.1987. The petitioner thereafter applied for seeking permission for conversion of the land for user as Hotel as contemplated by Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinema Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Con- version Rules of 1978"). This application was submitted on July 6 1987 before the District Collector Sawaimadhopur who is the competent authority to allow the conversion under Rule 6. After about 5 months of submission of the application respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to identify and mark the land in question in the map of Sawaimadhopur town and the petitioner sent a reply to the same informing that the land in question is a village land about 15 km. away from the town and as such is not a part of Municipal and town land. The petitioner's case is that no sanction is being accorded to him though in a similar matter in village Sherpur sanction was accorded for conversion of the land for putting up a hotel in nearby village Sherpur to one Abdul Kadir. Petitioner's case is that this land is 2 kms. The petitioner's case is that no sanction is being accorded to him though in a similar matter in village Sherpur sanction was accorded for conversion of the land for putting up a hotel in nearby village Sherpur to one Abdul Kadir. Petitioner's case is that this land is 2 kms. outside the boundary of Ranthambor National Park and is even outside the forest area as certified by the Assistant Forest Consolidation Officer Jaipur in his report dated 4.12.1987 which he submitted after site inspection. The petitioner's further case is that vide notification dated 7.11.1955 a large area in Sawaimadhopur District was declared as a 'reserved area' under Section 5 of Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951") part of which now has been declared as Ranthambor National Park as stated above. The 'reserved area' was declared and it was made unlawful to hunt shoot net trap snake capture or kill any kind of wild animals or birds at any time of the year. The boundary of the reserved area had been modified sub- sequently vide notification dated 5.8.1958 and village Bodal falls within this 'reserved area' which is reserved for the purpose mentioned in Section 2(iv) of the Act of 1951. The petitioner's case further is that Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972") passed by the Parliament and is a Central Act was brought into force in the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 1.9.1973. The State Government out of this reserved area declared certain area as National Park under Section 35 of the Act of 1972 regarding which mention has been made above. This was done vide notification dated 1.11.1980 the land which the petitioner wants to get converted is 2 kms. outside the boundary of this National Park. The petitioner's case is that though there is no legal impediment in refusing the conversion of the land as the village Bodal is neither the part of this sanctuary within the meaning of definition given under Section 2(26) of the Act of 1972 not having been declared as such under Section 18 of the Act of 1972 nor part of the National Park and thus the bar mentioned in Section 20 of the Act of 1972 is not attracted in this case. Petitioner's further case is that the land of the petitioner is approachable by Sawaimadhopur - Khandar road without passing through the boundary of the National Park or this sanctuary. According to the petitioner the Collector instead of deciding the case himself as contemplated by law sent the file to the Government and even the Revenue Secretary and the Chief Secretary agreed for granting sanction for conversion of the land but still the papers are being withheld arbitrarily and illegally. The petitioner's case therefore is that sanction cannot be withheld unjustifiably particularly when the permission has been granted to one Abdul Quadir of Bombay in similar circumstances. 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and reply has been filed on behalf of all the respondents. The case of the respondents is that after the application was filed the file was required to be sent to the Chief Town Planner of Rajasthan as contemplated by sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1978 and to this effect information was sent for from the petitioner to which be replied that no information is required to be taken as the land is situated in rural area. Respondents' case is that the Collector asked the Tehsildar to send his comments who in turn asked the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat who had no objection in the matter. No Objection Certificate was therefore issued by the Sarpanch and the Tehsildar but there was no approval of the Chief Town Planner as contemplated by rule 7. The respondents' case is that the land forms the part of this sanctuary area and under Section 20 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 Dhanna Gujar could transfer his khatedari rights and it could only be transferred by succession testamentary or intestate but it could never be transferred through sale-deed. The respondents' case is that under the Act of 1951 it was declared as a 'reserved area' and thereafter-the rules were framed under the Act in 1958 which are known as Rajasthan Entrance to the Game Sanctuaries Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Game Sanctuaries Rules 1958"). The case of the respondents further is that 'Sanctuaries' have been defined in Rule 2(a) which means the areas notified as reserved areas under Section 5 of the Act of 1951. The case of the respondents further is that 'Sanctuaries' have been defined in Rule 2(a) which means the areas notified as reserved areas under Section 5 of the Act of 1951. Under sub-s. (3) of Section 66 of the Act of 1972 any Sanctuary or the National Park declared by the State Government under any Act repealed is deemed to be a Sanctuary or National Park as the case may be declared by the State Government under the Act of 1972. In this view of the matter the area under dispute falls within the definition of Sanctuary and is thus not transferable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1972. Further case of the State Government is that the matter about conversion had been processed at various levels and ultimately a decision has been taken by the then Chief Minister and the then Forest Minister who decided not to allow conversion of the land in dispute for construction of the hotel buildings as the land falls within the limit of the Sanctuary area and therefore the opinion even if expressed by the Revenue Secretary or the Chief Secretary in favour of the petitioner is of no avail to him. 4. As the court had earlier directed that the case shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission in reply to the show cause notice and a reply had been filed with the concurrence of both the parties the final arguments were heard. 5. In support of the pleadings referred to above Mrs. Gosain learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government has usurped the jurisdiction vested in Collector Sawaimadhopur under the Land Revenue Act in refusing to convert the land in favour of the petitioner and the said action is totally without jurisdiction. It is then submitted that the word 'Sanctuary' has neither been defined nor used at any place in the Act of 1951 and only the word 'reserved area' was defined. It is then submitted that the word 'Sanctuary' has neither been defined nor used at any place in the Act of 1951 and only the word 'reserved area' was defined. The purpose of declaration of 'reserved area' is also mentioned in the Act and is for limited purposes as mentioned in Section 2(iv) and Section 5 of the Act of 1951 i.e. to put a prohibition on hunting shooting netting trapping snaring capturing or killing of the animals and the birds specified under the Act and the word 'Sanctuary' used in Rule 2(a) of Game Sanctuary Rules 1958 cannot have a meaning other than the meaning of the word 'reserved area' rather the word 'Sanctuary' used in Game Sanctuary Rules 1958 according to the definition itself is synonymous to word 'reserved area' under the Act of 1951 and therefore cannot have the same meaning as the Legislature has given under Section 2(26) of the Act of 1972 and restrictions mentioned in Section 20 of the Act of 1972 would therefore not extend to the land covered within the definition of 'reserved area'. It is submitted that the State Government and the Central Government were fully aware of the aforesaid situation in as much as consequent upon passing of the Act of 1972 the Legislature has not only declared a part of the 'reserved area' as National Park but also declared appurtenant area as Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Act of 1972 hence it is submitted that had the State Government any intention to cover the village Bodal under the provisions of the Act of 1972 there was nothing to prevent to declare it to be a Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Act of 1972. It is therefore submitted that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to grant sanction to the petitioner on his application dated 6.7.87 moved under Rule 5 of the Conversion Rules of 1978. 6. It is therefore submitted that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to grant sanction to the petitioner on his application dated 6.7.87 moved under Rule 5 of the Conversion Rules of 1978. 6. Shri N.L. Pareek appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under sub-s. (3) of Section 66 of the Act of 1972 the area declared to be a Sanctuary by State Government is deemed to be Sanctuary under the Act of 1972 and as admittedly it was a Sanctuary within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of Game Sanctuary Rules 1958 there is no escape from coming to the conclusion that bar to acquire rights as provided under Section 20 of the Act of 1972 would be fully applicable in the instant case. It is then submitted that the Chief Minister's powers are unfettered under the Land Revenue Act. The State Government is fully empowered to decide any matter regarding the conversion of the land. It is submitted that the Forest Minister as well as the Chief Minister have rejected the application after due application of mind and no interference is called for in this writ petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the entire relevant law. The petitioner filed an application for conversion of agricultural land purchased from Dhanna Gujar. The application was filed under the provisions of Conversion Rules of 1978. Rule 5 to Rule 8 of the Conversion Rules of 1978 deal with the classes of the land which may be allotted application for permission registration thereof scrutiny and inquiry on an application and the disposal of the same respectively. The application is required to be moved in form 'A' prescribed under the Rules before the Collector of the District where the agricultural land is situated and this application is required to be verified by the applicant as a plaint according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After registration of this application in a register to be kept in Form 'B' it has to be scrutinised and enquired into by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government who if thinks proper may refer the same for advice of the Chief Town Planner Rajasthan or any authority mentioned in Schedule 2 attached to the Rules. After registration of this application in a register to be kept in Form 'B' it has to be scrutinised and enquired into by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government who if thinks proper may refer the same for advice of the Chief Town Planner Rajasthan or any authority mentioned in Schedule 2 attached to the Rules. The Chief Town Planner or the authority is bound to give advice within a period of one month recommending the case for permission or assigning reasons for rejection under Rule 8 if he chooses to do so. The application referred to above is required to be disposed of by the Collector. Under Rule 11 of the Rules State Government has been given power to call for the record either on its own motion or on any application by any person but an order on such application has to be passed only after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing. Rule 11 of the Conversion Rules of 1978 reads as under: "Rule 11 - Powers of the State Government - (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the State Government either on its own motion or on the application of any person shall have the power to call for the record of any case and pass such orders as it deems fit after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and subject to the provisions of Section 102 and 90-A of the Act the State Government shall have powers to allot convert or regularise the use of agricultural land for construction of a Cinema or a Hotel or for establishment of a Petrol Pump on any terms as it deems fit". 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law makes it clear that under the rules it is the Collector alone who is authorised to dispose of the application for conversion or in absence of Collector any other person so authorised in that behalf. The powers of the State Government are the revisional powers and for exercising the powers of revision a restriction is imposed that it cannot dispose of the application without notice to the parties. The words 'after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard' make it obligatory on the State Government to decide the petition after notice to the party. The words 'after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard' make it obligatory on the State Government to decide the petition after notice to the party. It is admitted on behalf of the State that firstly the Collector has not decided the application presented before him under the rules and the same has been rejected by the Chief Minister on advice of the Forest Minister and secondly it has been rejected without notice to the petitioner. In my opinion no jurisdiction is vested express or implied in these authorities to decide the application for the simple reason that the Legislature's mandate is that order is to be passed by the Collector or a person authorised in this behalf and this order of the Collector is a judicial/quasi-judicial order under the rules which was revisable under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1978. The State Government therefore had the revisional power and not original powers as exercised by it. Assuming for a moment that the State Government had any power then too it could not take a decision adverse to the applicant-petitioner without hearing as hearing is a condition precedent under rule 11. Even otherwise disposal of an application against the person without hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice enshrined in maxim 'audi alteram partem'. For this reason alone the decision taken by the Chief Minister and the Forest Minister as stated in the reply of the State Government deserves to be set aside and the Collector is required to be directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the rules. 9. In view of the fact that the Forest Minister after dealing with the provisions of law has taken the view that it is a 'Sanctuary' within the meaning of section 2 (26) of the Act of 1972 and the bar to acquire rights operates under Section 20 of the said Act land cannot be converted except in the manner mentioned in section 20 of the Act and further that both the parties have submitted that this court should give interpretation to the various provisions of law for guidance in interpreting the various provisions I am entering into the arena of dispute about interpretation of the word 'Sanctuary'. 10. 10. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1951 which defines 'reserved area' reads as under: Section 2(a)-"Reserved area" in relation to any class of wild animals or wild birds means any area in the State of Rajasthan specified under or in pursuance of section 5 to be the area in which the hunting shooting netting trap- ping snaring capture or killing of such animals or bird is for the time being prohibited whether the same be a reserved of protected forest or other area". Section 5 reads as under : "S.5-Power to declare reserved area- (1) The State Government may by notification in the official gazette declare any area in the State of Rajasthan to be a reserved area for the purposes of this Act; (2) Throughout every such area it shall be unlawful to hunt shoot net trap snare capture or kill any kind of wild animals or wild birds at any time of the Year". 11. A perusal of the aforesaid two sections makes it clear that the purpose of declaration of 'reserved area' is limited and puts restriction on hunting shooting netting trapping snaring capturing or killing any kind of wild animal or wild bird at any time of the year. This Act neither defined the word 'Sanctuary' nor placed any restriction on transferring of any land within the 'reserved area'. The object of passing the Act was to provide protection and preservation of wild animals and birds in the State of Rajasthan and not beyond that. A notification was issued on 7th November, 1955 in exercise of the powers conferred under section 5 of the Act of 1951 where certain area in Sawaimadhopur District was declared to be 'reserved area'. Thereafter another notification was issued on August 5, 1958 under the same provisions i.e. section 5 of the Act of 1951 where the area was ex-tended and the village where the land in dispute is situated was also brought within the criteria of 'reserved area' Thereafter on 1st November, 1980 the State of Rajasthan issued yet another notification under the provisions of section 35 of the Act of 1972 and the rules made thereunder declaring the area mentioned therein as 'Ranthambor National Park' which admittedly does not cover the village Bodal. Thus it is clear that village Bodal was a part of the 'reserved area' or say 'Sanctuary' but as defined in Game Sanctuary Rules 1958 which definition reads as under: "Sanctuary" means the areas notified as reserved areas under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act 1951". These rules placed no restriction on conversion of the land or for any such purposes thereof. These rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act of 1951. Section 12 of the Act of 1951 reads as under : "S. 12- Power to make rules-(1) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) All such rules shall be published in the official gazette and shall upon such publication have effect as if enacted in this Act". The Game Sanctuary rules of 1958 could not be beyond framed except for the purpose for which the Act. was enacted. They were framed to give effect to the provisions of the Act and therefore the very aim of the rules was to place restriction of certain kinds mentioned therein for protection of the wild animals and the birds and therefore though the word 'Sanctuary' was used it was not meant to carry any other meaning or extend the scope as provided for under the Act. 12. The Act of 1972 which is the Central Act defines the 'Sanctuary' as under : "Sanctuary" -means an area declared whether under section 18 or section 38 or deemed under sub-s.(3) of section 66 to be declared as a wild life Sanctuary". It is admitted case that it has not been so declared under Section 18 or section 38 of the Act of 1972. to examine the argument of the State that it should be deemed under sub-s. (3) of section 66 to have been declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary it is essential to read the provision. It is admitted case that it has not been so declared under Section 18 or section 38 of the Act of 1972. to examine the argument of the State that it should be deemed under sub-s. (3) of section 66 to have been declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary it is essential to read the provision. Sub-S.(3) of Section 66 reads as under : "S.66(3) of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any sanctuary or National Park declared by a State Government under any Act repealed under sub-s.(1) shall be deemed to be a sanctuary or National Park as the case may be declared by the State Government under this Act and where any right in or over any land in any such National Park which had not been extinguished under the said Act at or before the commencement of this Act the extinguishment of such rights shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Act". The Act of 1972 passed by the Parliament was not only enacted for the protection of wild animals and the birds but it was enacted for all matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto and a perusal of various provisions of the Act makes it clear that it not only dealt with the sanctuary and the National Parks and defines them but also have the provision about. 'Game Reserves' and 'closed areas'. It also provides about the trade or commence in wild animals Animal articles and trophies and further provides for penalties and punishment for violation of the provisions of the Act. The Act also provides for bar of accrual of the rights in sanctuaries National Parks Game reserves and closed areas and for that gave different powers both to the State Government and the Central Government under the various provisions. It is not disputed on behalf of the State that the State Government has not chosen to declare Sawaimadhopur area as a Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Act of 1972 and the Central Government too did not consider it proper to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 38. The State Government however invoked the provisory of Section 35 and declared it to be a National Park. The State Government however invoked the provisory of Section 35 and declared it to be a National Park. It also did not declare this area as a Game Reserve under Section 36 or closed area under Section 37 of the Act of 1972. The State Government therefore contended by invoking the provisions of sub-s.(3) of Section 66 as according to it was deemed to be a Sanctuary. The close scrutiny of the provision of the Act of 1951 and the Act of 1972 makes it abundantly clear that it was never intended by the State Government while issuing the notification in 1955 and 1958 to convert it into a Sanctuary but wanted it only to be a reserved area where there were restrictions on hunting shooting netting trapping snaring capturing or killing of such animals or birds is for the time being. It therefore could not be called a Sanctuary as 'Sanctuary' was not defined under the Act of 1951 and even if the word has been used in the rules it cannot be held to have any meaning other than the meaning of the word 'reserved area' and the purpose and scope also cannot be extended what has not been provided for under the parent Act cannot be stretched under the deeming clause of the subsequent act which has repealed the earlier Act. Therefore what is deemed to be a 'Sanctuary' under sub-s.(3) of Section 66 of the Act of 1972 cannot carry a meaning as given under Section 2(26) of the Act of 1972 but its meaning purpose and scope is restricted to that of given under the Act of 1951 and the interpretation given by the Forest Minister in my humble opinion is totally erroneous. If the State Government wanted and wants there is no restriction on it from declaring it to be a 'Sanctuary' under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1972. Wide powers are vested in the Government even to acquire the land which is not vested in the State inside the area of 'Sanctuary' or 'National Park' under the Act of 1972. Wide powers are vested in the Government even to acquire the land which is not vested in the State inside the area of 'Sanctuary' or 'National Park' under the Act of 1972. Such provisions were not kept under the provisions of the Act of 1951 most probably because United State of Rajasthan was formed in 1949 by merger of various princely States and the Rulers of covenanting State had several reserved forests and hunting lounges belonging to them which they got declared as personal property in the deed of merger i.e. covenant and any provisions like that of incorporated in the Act of 1972 could not be enacted at that point of time. Thus in Act of 1951 or Game Sanctuary Rules of 1958 no such bar can be deemed to have accrued by borrowing definition of 'Sanctuary' in the Act of 1972. Lam therefore firmly of the opinion that the land in dispute cannot be deemed to be 'Sanctuary' within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Act of 1972 and there is no bar on accrual of rights under Section 20 of the Act of 1972. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions I hold that Chief Minister and the Forest Minister had no power express or implied under the Rules to dispose of the application filed under rule 5 of the Conversion Rules of 1978. Therefore the Collector Sawaimadhopur respondent No.3 before whom the petitioner filed the application under rule 5 of the Conversion Rules of 1978 is directed to dispose of the application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in light of the observations made above in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 shall not be influenced by the decision of the Chief Minister and the Forest Minister. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Collector Sawaimadhopur immediately for compliance.Petition allowed. *******