Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 319 (RAJ)

Anusuya v. Jodhpur

2006-02-01

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The instant petition for writ is preferred by the petitioner to quash the order of the respondent UIT, Jodhpur dated 11.08.1992 directing the petitioner to deposit conversion charges in a tune of Rs. 51,500/. The petitioner has also sought a direction for refund of the amount of Rs.51,500/ already deposited with UIT, Jodhpur in pursuant to the order dated 11.08.1992. 2.The facts in brief are that the petitioner by a sale deed dated 23.03.1988 purchased a peace of land from one Sh. Surajmal. Sh. Surajmal acquired title with regard to the land referred above as the same was sold to him as a consequent to an auction taken place in the year 1953 under execution proceedings pertaining to a decree dated 112.1950 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in money suit No. 203/48-49. A certificate of sale dated 13.01.1959 was given to Sh. Surajmal, which was handed over to the petitioner while executing the sale deed dated 23.03.1988. 3.The petitioner after acquiring title with regard to land purchased by him from Sh. Surajmal submitted an application to UIT, Jodhpur seeking permission for raising construction. The UIT, Jodhpur by its communication dated 11.08.1992 directed the petitioner to deposit conversion charges. The petitioner deposited the conversion charges in a tune of Rs. 51,500/. with UIT, Jodhpur on 19.08.1992. After depositing the amount the petitioner by way of present writ petition has given challenge to the amount demanded by the UIT, Jodhpur as conversion charges. 4.It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the UIT, Jodhpur was having no authority to charge the conversion charges from the petitioner as the land in question was neither allotted nor sold to the petitioner by the State Government or by any of its local authority. According to Counsel for the petitioner the payment of conversion charges by UIT, Jodhpur was absolutely unauthorized and therefore by retaining the sum of Rs, 51,500/. deposited by the petitioner the UIT, Jodhpur violated the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5.A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the UIT, Jodhpur stating therein that the conversion charges were demanded by the UIT in view of the provisions of Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. It is also contended on behalf of UIT, Jodhpur that the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 51,500/. 5.A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the UIT, Jodhpur stating therein that the conversion charges were demanded by the UIT in view of the provisions of Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. It is also contended on behalf of UIT, Jodhpur that the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 51,500/. without any objection, therefore, he is estopped from claiming refund of the same. 6.Heard Counsel for the parties. Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 as under:-"73-B Power of State Government to allow change in use of land.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 72 or 73-A, the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, in the public interest allow any person to use the land for purposes other than for which it was originally allotted or sold to him by any local authority or State Government or for purposes restricted in a scheme framed under Section 29, on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed. Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas. .(2) Theconversion charges so realized shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or to the fund of the Trust as may be determined by the State Government. .(3) Such charge shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable in the land the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." 7.From reading of the provisions of Section 73-B it is apparent that the conversion charges may be demanded if the land was allotted or sold by any local authority or State Government or for the purpose restricted in a scheme framed under Section 29 of the Act of 1959. In the instant case the land in question was neither sold nor allotted by the State Government or its local authority. The land with regard to which conversion charges were demanded is also not part of any scheme floated by the Trust under Section 29 of the Act of 1959. The UIT, Jodhpur, therefore, erroneously demanded conversion charges from the petitioner. 8.I do not find any force in the contention raised by Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is estopped from making any claim with regard to the amount deposited by him with UIT, Jodhpur without raising any objection. The UIT, Jodhpur, therefore, erroneously demanded conversion charges from the petitioner. 8.I do not find any force in the contention raised by Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is estopped from making any claim with regard to the amount deposited by him with UIT, Jodhpur without raising any objection. The UIT, Jodhpur without having any authority of law demanded the sum of Rs. 51,500/ from the petitioner and also got it deposited. A local authority is always required to support its demand by an authority of law. If any amount is retained by such authority without having legal foundation, then the amount so retained is required to be returned to the person from which it is charged. 9.In the instant matter as I have already held that UIT, Jodhpur without having any authority of law charged a sum of Rs. 51,500/ from the petitioner, therefore, it is obligatory for the Trust to refund the same to the petitioner. The UIT, Jodhpur retained the aforesaid amount with it for about 14 years, therefore, it is also required to pay interest thereon. 10.Accordingly this petition for writ is allowed. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 51,500/ to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from today. No order as to cost.