JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is the owner of the property governed by the pattas issued by erstwhile Sirohi State in favour of the petitioner's ancestors Annx. and Annx. 2 issued on 11- 12-1926 and 5-4-1926. No condition restricting the user of the land in question allotted to the petitioners ancestors was attached. The petitioner has challenged the demands raised by the municipality for levying charges for conversion of use of land from residential to commercial purposes vide Annexures 9-A to 9-D and order of attachment for recovery of the same vide Annx. 19. 2. The case of the petitioner is that since there was no restriction in respect of nature of use to which the land could be put by him in the pattas under which the land is held, he is entitled to use the property as he likes and no conversion charges for change in user from residential to commercial is leviable under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. He relied on a Bench decision of this Court in support of his contention reported in 2000 DNJ 485 (Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur v. Raj Kumar). 3. This proposition has not been contested by learned counsel for the respondent either that the Division Bench has that power to levy conversion charges under Section 173-A is not applicable where the grant is not conditioned by restricting the right of the grantee about the user of the land in a particular manner. However, he contends that since the Division Bench has not taken into consideration the Notification dated 30th Sept. 1999 making amendment in Section 173-A and rules framed thereunder, the question requires reconsideration. 4. I am unable to agree inasmuch as there is nothing in the Notification which makes it retrospective in operation so as to validate the orders made under the then existing provisions before its amendment, nor any provision of the amended section makes any change so far as the principle of levying conversion charges only to a case when a person uses or permits the use of any land situated in municipal area for the purpose other than for which the land was originally allotted or sold by the State Govt. to any person. Undoubtedly, in this case, Sirohi State has allotted/sold the land in question to the petitioners ancestors without any restriction on the use of the land. to any person. Undoubtedly, in this case, Sirohi State has allotted/sold the land in question to the petitioners ancestors without any restriction on the use of the land. Therefore, the question of using the land for any purpose other than for which it is allotted so as to invite application of the provisions of Section 173-A a whether amended or unamended does not arise. Change in permissible use can only occur when in the first instance the land is sold with such condition about particular use to which land could be put. Else freedom to use the land for any purpose is uninhibted. 5. Since otherwise the matter is squarely covered by a Bench decision of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned orders of raising demand (Annexures 9-A to 9- D) as well as attachment order (Annexure 19) is quashed and the property shall stand released from attachment.There shall be no orders as to costa.Petition allowed. *******