JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-Amrit Grab Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `samiti') has challenged in this petition the impugned order of Board of Revenue passed on 9.7.1985 (Annex. 6), whereby. the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority was set aside and the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Agricultural Land Conversion), Jodhpur in so far as it ordered charging of general-rate as provided in column No. 4 of Schedule 11 for 16,066.12 sq. yards for agricultural land was restored. The petitioner was registered as society on 5.1.1981 and it claims to came in possession of the land in question on 15.1.1981 as per the agreement to sale executed on that very day i.e. 15.11981. Two applications dated 15.4.1982 and 30.4.1982 were submitted by the petitioner u/R. 6(1) of the Rules praying that 22064.99 sq. yards and 20000 sq. yards land be converted from agricultural to residential purposes, in all 42064.88 sq. yards. Alongwith the applications blue print was also submitted and as per the blue print the total area, area under the plots, area under the roads and area under the open space were given separately. The area under the plots was 58,131 sq. yards. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1,32,389.28 conversion charges at the rate of 6.50 per sq. yards at concessional rates alongwith penalty at 6% i.e. Rs. 6619.46 alongwith first application dated 15.4.1982 for 22,064.88 sq. yards. 2. Similarly, alongwith other application the conversion charges and penalty amount were deposited. When the matter was pending before the authorised officer, the petitioner prayed that 16,066.12 sq. yards may also be converted at concessional rates. This area was also under the plots. In all the petitioner society deposited Rs. 3,53.238.74 on different dates i.e. 15.4.1982, 30.4.1982, 31.5.1982 and 31.5.1982. However, petitioner society was directed by the Addl. Collector to deposit further amount of Rs. 63,595/-, which was deposited by the petitioner under protest on 19.11.1983. Thus, in all the society deposited Rs. 4,16,833.74 towards conversion charges including penalty. The Addl. Collector by his order dated 24.11.1983 ordered conversion of 42,064.88 sq yards land at concessional rates at Rs. 6/- per sq. yards and for rest of the land i.e. 16,066.12 sq. yards land at regular rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. yard as there was no such application for that land. 3. Against that part of the order passed by the Addl. Collector for 16,064.12 sq. 6/- per sq. yards and for rest of the land i.e. 16,066.12 sq. yards land at regular rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. yard as there was no such application for that land. 3. Against that part of the order passed by the Addl. Collector for 16,064.12 sq. yards at regular rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. yard the petitioner society filed appeal before the Revue Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal the State Government by its order dated 14.2.1984 extended the date upto 29.2.1984, therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 1.3.1984 before the Revenue Appellate Authority submitting that though this application for conversion was also well in time, but in view of the decision of the Government concessional rate be charged for 16,066.12 sq. yards land. The said application was allowed and on the basis of that application the appeal was also allowed and it was ordered by the Revenue Appellate Authority that concessional rates should be charged for 16,066.12 sq. yards land. 4. Aggrieved of that order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the petitioner society for remaining land of 16,066.12 sq. yards land, the State of Rajasthan preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue on 9.7.1985 (Annex. 6). The same is challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 5. Going through the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, it appears that the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan was allowed by the Board of Revenue totally on a different ground and the Board of Revenue restored the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Agricultural Land Conversion). The Board of Revenue has placed heavy reliance upon the proviso to sub-rule (4) of R. I I of the Rules. It was of the opinion that it can only be said to have been used for residential purposes as and when, building or part of building for residential purposes is constructed thereof. And, because thee was no construction on the land in question, therefore, it held that the society was liable to pay the general rate and not the concessional rate. And, because thee was no construction on the land in question, therefore, it held that the society was liable to pay the general rate and not the concessional rate. The Board of Revenue has also observed in its order that subsequent notification dated 1.9.1984 and 18.1.1984 have no bearing to the case and Revenue Appellate Authority has committed serious error in relying upon it for allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner society. 6. If the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that while allowing, the appeal Revenue Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the proviso to sub-rule (4) of R. II of the Rules and wrongly placed reliance upon the subsequent notification then instead of straightway allowing the appeal of the State and setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and restoring the order of Addl. Collector on different reasons, the Board of Revenue should have remanded the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal by keeping in mind the proviso to sub-rule (4) of R. 11 of the Rules and also on the point as to whether the subsequent notification of the Government has any application or not? 7. The Board of Revenue should have borne in mind that it was deciding second appeal and not the regular appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority . When there are subsequent notifications issued by the State Government which have direct bearing on the case then in my opinion it cannot be said that Revenue Appellate Authority committed any error in relying upon it. It appears from the order of the Board of Revenue that it was very much concern with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of R. 11 of the Rules and on erroneous plea that it can be said to have been used for residential purposes only when there is a building or part of building for residential purposes is constructed on the land. Thus, on both the counts the order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue on 9.7.1985 (Annex. 6) is hereby quashed and set aside. Once the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annex. Thus, on both the counts the order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue on 9.7.1985 (Annex. 6) is hereby quashed and set aside. Once the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annex. 6) is set aside, the subsequent order passed by the Board of Revenue on 30.6.1986 (Annex. 7) is also required to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annex. 6 and 7 passed by the Board of Revenue are set aside and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority at Annex. 5 dated 23.3.1984 is hereby restored.Petition allowed. *******