JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed in this court by the above named petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter concerning interpretation of the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956) and in the matter of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that earlier there existed a plot of land known as Khasra No. 27 measuring 2 Bighas 9 Biswas in village Shankergarh @ Moti Doongri Jaipur. The said land was classified in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkin Abadi" and was recorded in the record of rights in the name of one Raghunathdas resident of Shankergarh/Moto Doongri, Jaipur. Raghunathdas vendor sold the entire land falling in Khasra No. 27 to one Suwalal vide sale deed dated 23rd January, 1965 which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur on 31st March, 1965. The said land was originally registered in the name of one Suwalal vide Annexure-5. A plot of land bearing No.B-122 measuring 944.44 Sq. yards was sold in favour of Suwalal as per registered sale deed, as referred to above, on 24th February, 1968 for a valuable consideration vide Annex-1 and the petitioner vendor had paid Rs. 25,000/- to the vendee and stamp duty of Rs. 1,000/-. The expenses for conversion were to be born by the vendee, while development charges etc., were to be born by the Urban Development Corporation. Approval was granted by the Municipal Council, Jaipur vide Annex-3A and 3B. Construction was raised in the year 1969 on the basis of permission granted by the Municipal Council, Jaipur on 7th June, 1969. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid plot of land No. B-122 forming part of Khasra Noe 27 of village Shankergarh @ Moti Doongri has been throughout shown in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkim Abadi" vide certified copy of Khasra Girdawari for the Samvat Year 2018-2031 (Annex-4 & 5 respectively). 4. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid plot of land No. B-122 forming part of Khasra Noe 27 of village Shankergarh @ Moti Doongri has been throughout shown in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkim Abadi" vide certified copy of Khasra Girdawari for the Samvat Year 2018-2031 (Annex-4 & 5 respectively). 4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that two civil suits were filed for eviction and arrears of rent by Smt. Naraini against Sonia(deceased) thought her legal representatives and others in the court of Munsiff, Ist Class, Jaipur. The trial court while disposing of the suits recorded a finding in para 21 so the judgment that the defendants have failed to prove that the land is agricultural land and on the contrary it is well established that the same is "Gair Mumkin Abadi" land and it was accordingly held by the trial court that when the land is held to be Abadi land, Section 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act does not apply and hence no question of mutation proceedings arises in the matter. Accordingly issue was decided against the defendant and it was held by the trial court that the land in question is "Gair Mumkin Abadi" land and consequently the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. While issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff issues No. 2 and 3 concerning execution of the sale deed in question was duly proved by the plaintiff and consequently it was held by the trial court that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute for consideration from Raghunathdas. With regard to issue No. 3 the trial court held that the plaintiff had proved his bona fide need to occupy the suit premises in question. Regarding issues No. 4 and 5 it was held that the notice of eviction was duly proved and that the tenant had no right to challenge the right of the landlord to sell the premises in question. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, both for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises in question as well as for arrears of rent with costs vide its order, dated 18th December, 1974 (Annex-7). 5. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, both for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises in question as well as for arrears of rent with costs vide its order, dated 18th December, 1974 (Annex-7). 5. Admittedly, the land in question forming part of Khasra No. 27, as referred to above, is Abadi land and not agricultural land. 6. During the course of hearing, it was also brought to the notice of this court that another suit was filed for relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Court of Munsiff, Jaipur which was registered as case No. 129/69. In the said suit also the petitioner had claimed that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner by Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur for construction of residential house over it and he has been in occupation of the same since 29th December, 1961. It was held by the trial court in the said suit that the plaintiff has proved prima facie case for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the land measuring 244.44 Sq. yards lying in the North-East of the disputed plot and that it is better to maintain the status quo by the respective parties only in respect of 244.44 Sq.yards out of total land measuring 844 sq. yards as the remaining land was a private land vesting with Suwalal and that Urban Improvement Trust had got no right to exercise its jurisdiction upon it for the purposes of allotment. It was consequently held that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case in respect of entire land measuring 844 sq.yards and was entitled to relief only to the extent of 244 sq. yards of land and the suit was decreed against the defendants with a direction to maintain status-quo, as referred to above. 7. It was consequently held that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case in respect of entire land measuring 844 sq.yards and was entitled to relief only to the extent of 244 sq. yards of land and the suit was decreed against the defendants with a direction to maintain status-quo, as referred to above. 7. The term 'land' has been defined under sub-section (24) of section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as under : "5(24): Land shall mean land which is let or held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient thereto or as grove land or for pasturage, including land occupied by houses or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing Singhara or other similar produce but excluding Abadi land: it shall include benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid definition of the term 'land' clearly shows that the land recorded as 'Abadi' has been specifically excluded from the definition of term 'land' as defined under the provisions of the Act, as referred to above. It will be further pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act while defining 'land' and 'abadi' respectively as incorporated in Section 103 of the Land Revenue Act, the same definition of 'land' as contained in clause (24) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as referred to above, would be relevant for consideration in this case as well. In sub-section (b) of Section 103 of the Land Revenue Act it has further been provided that 'Abadi' or 'Abadi area' or 'Abadi land' means and includes populated area of the village, town or city and the site of such village, town or city including land reserved and set apart under Section 92 of the Act for the development of the Abadi therein and land held therein for building purposes notwithstanding as to whether a building has been raised thereon or not. 9. 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Land Revenue Act, as referred to above, makes it abundantly clear that the lands falling within the populated area including the lands reserved and set apart for the development of populated area irrespective of the fact whether building has been raised or not, have been deemed and considered to be Abadi lands in contrast to the agricultural land. 10. It will be relevant to refer to Section 95 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which empowers the State Government to formulate Rules for reservation of the lands set apart for development of Abadi or allotment of Nazool lands. Sub-section (4) of Section 95 provides that nothing in this section shall apply to the land in the Abadi area which is in lawful occupation of any person at the commencement of this Act. 11. As already stated in the foregoing paras above, the land in question in this case is located in thickly populated area as so recorded in the revenue records prior to 1956 and that village Shankergarh/Moti Doongri has always been a thickly populated area. This fact is further fortified by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, which has also treated the land in question to be within the populated area as Abadi land within Moti Doongri Extension Scheme and approved as such by clear demarcation of the plots out of which the plot in question i.e. plot No. B-122 was carved out and entered in the revenue records in the name of the present petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that entries made in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true and correct unless proved to the contrary and this fact is fortified by section 140 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In the records of rights Khasra No. 27 continues to be shown as 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' as referred to in the foregoing paras above. This fact has further been fortified by the Urban Improvement Trust in favour of the petitioner vide its letter dated 15.5.81 confirming the fact that plot No. B-122 purchased by the petitioner falls within Khasra No. 27 of village Shankergarh/Moti Doongri vide Annex-12. This fact has further been fortified by the Urban Improvement Trust in favour of the petitioner vide its letter dated 15.5.81 confirming the fact that plot No. B-122 purchased by the petitioner falls within Khasra No. 27 of village Shankergarh/Moti Doongri vide Annex-12. Placing reliance upon the relevant provisions of enactments, as referred to above, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot in question bearing No. B-122 situated in Moti Doongri Extension Scheme was never an agricultural land and it has always been treated by U. I. T. as Abadi land for residential purposes and as such it is not open to the respondents to change the user of the residential land to agricultural land. 12. On a perusal of the records, the relevant documents and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the objection raised by the respondents regarding the land in question that the same cannot be treated as Abadi land without any order from competent authority to use the land for purposes other than the agriculture is not tenable particularly in view of the fact that the respondents themselves have admittedly treated the said land for residential purposes which is fully borne out from the relevant entries made in the record of rights and hence it is not open to the respondents to plead to the contrary. As a matter of fact, it is a settled proposition of law that once a party has taken a particular stand in favour of another by documentary evidence in support thereof, is estopped by its own conduct, act and acquiescence from pleading to the contrary which in fortified by the principle of estoppel as enshrined under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court is further of the opinion that it is not open to the respondents to agitate by contending that since the petitioner had not submitted a copy of the registered sale deed, no entry could be made in the revenue records about the same in favour of the petitioner, particularly when in the revenue record nothing has been shown to the contrary. Admittedly the land has been held to be an Abadi land forming part of populated area for the past several years, and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to plead that the land comprised in Khasra No. 27 was recorded as agricultural land on 1.5.56 and, therefore, there cannot be any change in the land user from agriculture to residential purposes when admittedly in the revenue records it has been mentioned as Abadi land. 13. After examining the records and after considering the rival claims and contentions advanced by the respondents in reply to the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that since the land in question forming the part of Khasra No. 27 admittedly falls in the Abadi area and is, therefore, an Abadi land, no conversion charges are necessary to be imposed on the petitioner as so contended by the respondents, since the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 261 read with Section 90-A, 102 and 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act would be applicable only to those cases where the party requires conversion of land use from agriculture to residential or any other purposes but not so in a case where the land is already under Abadi area, no conversion would be necessary in such a case. I am consequently of the view that the respondents were not justified in serving the impugned notice (Annex-13) dated 17.2.82 calling upon the petitioner, as the same is in violation of the Act as referred to above and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. I am further of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned notice are also quashed and set aside. I am further of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned notice are also quashed and set aside. I am fortified in my opinion on the basis of entries made in the record of rights in respect of Khasra No. 27 of village Shankergarh/Moti Doongari which has admittedly been used as Abadi area and it has been so recorded even prior to 27.12.1958 when section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was inserted and the insertion of the said provision in the Statute book was not intended to have retrospective effect and hence in any event for the sake of argument, even if the land in question was treated as agricultural land prior to 27.12.58 but at the same time was used for residential purposes, then also the rules framed thereunder would not be attracted in the present case against the petitioner and consequently the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of impugned order, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 14. I am of the considered opinion that before any rule is made applicable by the State Government there has to be criteria and guidelines which should be formulated by the Rule Making Authority to give effect to the same. In absence of the said criteria or the guidelines it would not be proper for the State Government or the concerned authorities acting on behalf of the State Government to apply the said rules without any rational basis against the affected party. In that event it will be considered as a retrograde measure and will be treated as a case of excessive delegation of power in violation of Constitutional provisions and safeguards and accordingly Rule 11 of the Urban Area Rules, 1981 which gives excessive powers to the State Government for categorising different municipal towns into different categories suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of power and being ultra vires of the Constitution of India has to be struck down as unconstitutional. 15. I am fortified in my opinion from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Gopal Vs. 15. I am fortified in my opinion from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Gopal Vs. Durga Prasad, 1975 RRD 191 , wherein this court while dealing with an identical matter held as under:- "Determination as to whether suit land is Abadi land would not be necessary in a case where admittedly the land in question is in populated area of the town and as such must be deemed to be a forming part of populated area." This Court further held that merely because a portion of the land in question falls within compound of temple used as garden for cultivation would not change the character of the land being Abadi land. It was further held that notwithstanding the fact that the granter of Patta or the land revenue or the rent was not fixed, suit land was held Abadi land on the basis of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further held that mere fact that the land was being put to agricultural use is not sufficient and on that basis it would not be proper to hold that the land is agricultural as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 16. I am further fortified in my opinion by the observations of this Court in the matter of Smt. Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (Vol II) RLW 380 , wherein this court while dealing with a similar situation concerning interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, more the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, more particularly sections 92 and 102-A, held that the land in question notwithstanding the same was earlier a Nazool land but by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(1) of the Act was placed at the disposal of local authority, was held to be the land forming part of the urban area and placed at the disposal of U.I.T. and consequently was the land meant for residential use in Abadi area and consequently the petition was allowed with a direction to the U. I. T., Bikaner to consider the applicants for regularisation of the land in terms of the Government order passed on 21.1.1982 in accordance with law. 17. 17. In view of the observations made above, writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents with the direction to refrain from initiating any proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rules of 1981 or any other rules regarding conversion of agriculture land in non-agriculture purposes, since the land in question is admittedly an Abadi land forming part of Abadi area of Moti Doongri, Jaipur and no conversion charges are necessary to be imposed as already stated above. The respondents are further restrained from initiating or taking any action against the petitioner regarding his aforesaid plot No. B-122 in Moti Doongri Extension Scheme under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act or any of the rules framed thereunder. This direction would also apply to any other similar land situated either in Moti Doongri Scheme or any other residential scheme in the vicinity of Jaipur which was earlier agriculture land and subsequently treated as residential land on the basis of entries made in the record of rights. I am further of the opinion that the provisions of Rules 11 and 13 of the Rules of 1981 of Schedule II of the Land Revenue Act are declared as ultra vires of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and discriminatory and are, therefore, struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. Consequently, with the above observations this writ petition is allowed with costs-which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/-shall be deposited by the respondents with the Rajasthan State Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur.Petition Allowed with costs. *******