JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Single Judge by order under appeal dated 30.10.2003 has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to move a fresh application meeting all the requirements of law before the competent authority. The respondents have been directed to decide the application within a reasonable time. A further direction has been given that if the payment has been made by the appellant that will be subject to adjustment with fresh application. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that learned Single Judge has given directions without noticing the act that the appellant had already moved an appropriate application and the requisite charges have been deposited. 3. It is claimed that the appellants are in possession over the subject land since 1941 when it was allotted as Bapi Patta by the erstwhile State of Mewar. In the year 1990 the appellant applied for the change of the land use from industrial to commercial. The Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara by order dated 20.4.1990 allowed the conversion of the land for commercial purposes on payment of conversion charges and certain other conditions enumerated in the order. According to the appellant, the respondent did not comply with the Condition No. 7. The matter remained pending. In the year 2000 the State Government made necessary amendment in Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of Land Use) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2000'). It was made applicable to all other Urban Improvement Trusts by notification in that regard issued on 25.5.2000. Thus, the Urban Improvement Trust asked the appellant-Company to submit its lay out plan on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the letter dated 3.6.2000. In compliance of the said letter the appellant submitted a revised lay out plari dividing the land in question into four blocks. It was specified that the Company will raise construction as per its convenience block wise. The respondent-UIT by order dated 11.7.2000 accorded permission to the appellant-Company to raise construction over the land in question and also sanctioned the lay out plan on certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. At this stage, the officers of the UIT, advised the appellant to submit his application in Form- I under the Rules of 2000. This was opposed by the appellant on the ground that as they have submitted the application earlier, the Rules of 2000 are not applicable. At this stage, the officers of the UIT, advised the appellant to submit his application in Form- I under the Rules of 2000. This was opposed by the appellant on the ground that as they have submitted the application earlier, the Rules of 2000 are not applicable. However, in order to avoid any sort of controversy the appellant submitted an application in Form-I alongwith the application fee of Rs. 37,661/-. The respondent-UIT by order dated 28.5.2000 asked the appellant to make self assessment of conversion charges for the first block i.e. Block-C and inform them. The appellant-company deposited a sum of Rs. 17,93,556/- as conversion charges for Block-C as per self assessment under protest on 2.8.2001. The respondent by a letter dated 3.6.2002 again asked the appellant to submit his revised lay out plan dividing the land in question into four blocks. The plan was approved by order dated 11.7.2002. At this stage, the UIT, Bhilwara took a U turn cancelling the sanction made in favour of the appellant by communication dated 23.8.2002. The contesting respondent took the plea that under the Rules of 2000 such a sanction could be granted by the State Level Committee alone. In these circumstances the learned Single Judge without entering into the controversy made the matter straight by directing the appellant to submit a fresh application under the Rules of 2000. 4. From the factual matrix it clearly appears that sanction was granted for the conversion of subject land as back as in the year 1990. The matter remained pending with the UIT. To avoid complications the application was submitted in Form-I alongwith the application fee of Rs. 37,661/-. The conversion charges of Rs. 17,93,556/- has also been deposited. In these circumstances, the respondent has acted arbitrarily in cancelling the sanction even without notice to the appellant by the impugned order dated 23.8.2002. The things cannot be made straight unless the said order is quashed and set aside. If under the Rules the sanction is required to be granted by the State Level Committee, there should not be any difficulty in placing the matter before the said commit,tee. The things cannot be made straight unless the said order is quashed and set aside. If under the Rules the sanction is required to be granted by the State Level Committee, there should not be any difficulty in placing the matter before the said commit,tee. In these circumstances, there is justification in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not required to give direction to the appellant to submit a fresh application without noticing the fact that the appellant had already moved an appropriate application and the requisite charges have already been deposited by him. 5. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure-17 dated 23.8.2002 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-UIT is directed to deal with the application filed by the appellant in Form-I in accordance with the Rules of 2000, if required, it may be placed before the State Level Committee. The application shall be considered by the State Level Committee giving due regard to the fact that the UIT had already given sanction and the conversion charges have already been deposited, within a period of two months.Appeal Allowed. *******