( 1 ) THE question that arises in this batch of civil appeals is: whether the subject-matter of writ petition filed by the respondent is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mohd. Bux v. State of Rajasthan. ( 2 ) CONVERSION of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in the state of Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Area brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 (for short "the 1966 Rules") and granting of mining lease is governed by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1977 (framed under the Central Act) (for short "the 1977 rules" ). The respondents in these appeals were allotted plots of conversion of the agricultural lands into plots for the purpose of kiln. They paid certain amounts as conversion fee under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Concession of agricultural into Non-Agricultural Land) Rules, 1961. The State of rajasthan amended the 1966 Rules and added Part C on 30-4-1988. Pursuant to the said amendment fresh demands were raised against the respondents who challenged the amended Rules as well as the demand raised against him. The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing proceeded on the ground that the subject-matter of the writ petition was covered by the decision of the Full Bench, referred to above, and accordingly allowed the writ petitions by quashing the demands. The State of Rajasthan carried the matters in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the orders of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench having found that the appeals are barred by limitation by 75 days and also observing that on merit the subject-matter was covered by the Full Bench of the High court in the case referred to above, dismissed the writ appeals by orders dated 18-5-1994, 19-5-1994 and 22-2-1993. It is the validity of those orders that are assailed in the appeals by special leave. ( 3 ) HEARD Mrs Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel for the State of rajasthan as well as Mr Sushil Kumar Jain and Mr Manoj Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) WE have perused the judgment of the Full Bench. The Full Bench pronounced upon the validity of Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the 1966 rules, which deal with the procedure for allotment of lease. ( 4 ) WE have perused the judgment of the Full Bench. The Full Bench pronounced upon the validity of Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the 1966 rules, which deal with the procedure for allotment of lease. The validity of conditions 19 and 20 which were inserted by Notification dated 30-4-1988 was not before the Full Bench. Therefore, it could not be said that the said conditions have been held to be bad. It is no doubt true that while summarising the discussion in para 31 under Question 3, it is stated that the rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 are beyond the authority/competence of the State Government but it is qualified by the clause to the extent of grant of mining lease which refers to the conditions mentioned above and they do not cover Conditions 19 and 20. The Division Bench also fell into the same error in confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. White setting aside the judgments under appeal we find it appropriate to remand the matters to the learned Single Judge, after restoring the writ petitions to the file of the High Court, to be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THE appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.