Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1429 (RAJ)

Sanjeev Sachdeva v. State of Rajasthan

2008-05-22

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the demand notice Annex.9 dated 2.4.2004 issued by the respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur in exercise of the powers under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) and the Rajasthan Municipalities Rules, 2000 (for short, "the Rules" hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Pareshar Soni, 2007 DNJ (SC) 1063 . It is submitted that similar controversy came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Pareshar Soni v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and the demand raised for payment of conversion charges for the change of user of the land was quashed and that matter has been carried to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Pareshar Soni (supra) held as under:- "We, therefore, have to accept the conclusion of the Division Bench that the property had neither been allotted by the Municipal Corporation or by the State Government or that any restriction had been placed on its user. Consequently, the question of demanding conversion charges for change of user would also not arise and the amended provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 173-A would also have no application to the facts of the case, since it is controlled by the very opening words that no person shall use or permit the use of any land situated in any municipal area, for the purpose other than that for which such land was originally allotted or sold to any person by the State Government. If the basis on which sub- section (4) of Section 173-A could be applied, is not available to the petitioner the demand raised by it towards conversion charges also is not maintainable." 4. If the basis on which sub- section (4) of Section 173-A could be applied, is not available to the petitioner the demand raised by it towards conversion charges also is not maintainable." 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Municipal Corporation submits that though the controversy stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 173-A of the Act has neither been argued nor considered and, therefore, in view of these provisions, the respondent Municipal Corporation is entitled to demand the conversion charges when the use of the land has been sought to be changed. 5. Be that as it may, it appears that these provisions have been noticed as have been re-produced in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove and, therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India which answers the controversy raised in the instant writ petition and, therefore, the demand raised by the respondent Municipal Corporation vide Annex.9 dated 2.4.2004 cannot be justified and the respondent Municipal Corporation is not empowered to demand such an amount for change of the user of the land and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.9 dated 2.4.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition stands disposed of.Writ petition allowed. *******