Honble VERMA, J. – The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for residential and commercial purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (Hereinafter called the `Rules) do permit, in certain circumstances, for conversion of the agricultural land to other purposes as mentioned in the rules itself. The petitioner is said to have applied u/R. 6 for conversion of the Khatedari land situated in Village Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu measuring 755 Sq. yards. In consequence of his application and after completing all the formalities, ultimately, the State of Rajasthan had executed the lease deed u/R. 16 of the said rules. After execution and completion of the lease deed the conversion had become complete and the land in question was no more to be considered as agricultural land. Even the petitioner is said to have taken certain permission from the Municipal Board for running the lime-kiln which is clear from Annex. 1. Ofcourse he was running the lime-kiln before the actual execution of the lease deed itself. However, the petitioner had completed all the formalities and the conversion charges of Rs. 11,211,75/-, were also paid. After the execution of the lease deed had been completed, the land in question no more remains the agriculture land. The lease deed is attached as Annex. 2 with the writ petition. (2). It was on 9.10.1986 when the Tehsildar vide his letter No. 1508/Revenue/86 had issued notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why the agricultural land was being used for lime- kiln i.e. for commercial to industrial purposes. The petitioner had applied vide his representation Annex. 4 stating therein that he had already deposited the conversion charges and the lease deed had already been executed in his favour, and, therefore, it was stated by the petitioner that no agricultural land is being used by him for any other purpose and thus, had prayed that the notice be withdrawn in view of the fact that the agricultural land already stood converted and lease executed. (3). Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the facts as stated above have not been denied. However, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner had not taken any permission to run the lime kiln. Therefore, no illegality had been committed by the Tehsildar in issuing the notice Annex. 3 and simultaneously appointing the Receiver. (3). Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the facts as stated above have not been denied. However, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner had not taken any permission to run the lime kiln. Therefore, no illegality had been committed by the Tehsildar in issuing the notice Annex. 3 and simultaneously appointing the Receiver. The non-petitioners in their affidavits filed alongwith the written statement had stated that the action was taken by the Tehsil- dar u/S. 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. (4). The only question which arises for determination is when the land having been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural under the Rules of 1981, whether the Tehsildar had any jurisdiction to invoke any powers u/S. 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Sec. 90 A of the Act reads as under : ``90A. Use of Agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes : (1) No person holding any land for the purpose of agriculture, and no transferee of such land or any part thereof, shall use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon or otherwise, for any other purpose except with the written statement of the State Govern- ment obtained in the manner hereinafter laid down and otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission. (2) .................... (3) .................... (4) .................... (5) If any such land is so used – (a) without the written permission of the State Government being first obtained, or (b) otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission, or (c) after such permission having been refused under sub- sec. (3), or (6) Without making any of the payments referred to in sub- sec. (4) the person originally holding the land as aforesaid for the purpose of agriculture as well as all subsequent transferees, if any, shall be deemed to be a trespasser or trespassers, as the case may be, and shall be liable to ejectment from such land in accordance with Sec. 91 as if he or they had occupied or continued to occupy such land without lawful authority and to every such proceedings the provisions of Sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of1955) shall apply as if such land were in danger or being wasted, dama- ged or alienated. (5). (5). From the bare reading of Sec. 90A, it is very clear that the Tehsildar may have certain jurisdiction in the case where the agricultural land is utilized for non- agricultural purposes and in the contingencies provided in Sec. 90A itself when there is no permission sought by any such defaulter. In the present case much before issuing of the notice Annex. 5 or appointment of the Receiver, the land in question stood already converted under the Rules of 1981 and the conversion charges had already been deposited. Keeping in view of the consequences of conversion which culminates in execution of the lease deed u/R. 16 of the Rules of 1981, the provisions of Sec. 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were not available to the Tehsildar for issuing any such notice or for appointment of any Receiver. Once the land stands converted the provisions of Sec. 90A cannot be invoked for the reason that from the bare reading of Sec. 90A, its provisions are applicable to the agricultural land which is used or misused without any permission for the purposes mentioned in the Act itself. The action of the Tehsildar was void ab-intio and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. With the result the order Annex. 5 is liable to be quashed and is quashed. (6). A preliminary objection has been taken by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal as provided u/S. 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. For the reason that the Tehsildar had no power or jurisdiction to issue any notice or interfere into the user of the land which had already been converted, the objection of resorting to the provisions of appeal by the petitioner is not maintainable. Even otherwise it shall be highly in-appropriate to direct the petitioner at this stage to file the appeal after about 10 years of the impugned order having been passed. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex. 5 is quashed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The State shall be at a liberty to recover the same from the Tehsildar concerned if it so desires.