Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2240 (RAJ)

Roopa Ram Bheel v. The State of Rajasthan

2011-10-18

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Having regard to the circumstances of the case, while allowing the application (IA No. 13897/2011), the matter has been considered today itself. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the application (IA No. 10191/2011). 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus against the respondents for deciding the application filed for conversion of the land use from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes; and seeking declaration that the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules of 2007 are not applicable to the petitioner and that on the date of submission of the application (08.11.2006) or of depositing the conversion charges (15.12.2006), rights have crystallised in favour of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules of 1992 and he is entitled to seek conversion as per the rates prevalent on 08.11.2006. 4. In this writ petition, show cause notices were issued on 04.03.2008 and thereafter, this petition was admitted for consideration on 05.12.2008. Thereafter, the matter was considered on 05.07.2010 when an application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition challenging the conversion fees as demanded by the respondents was allowed. 5. Further, the matter was considered on 04.03.2011 on the prayer for interim relief and this Court proceeded to reject the stay application finding no reason for issuing interim mandamus to the respondents that they should issue the conversion order during the pendency of the writ petition. However, while rejecting the stay application, this Court took note of the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to deposit the entire amount of the demand as raised by the respondents; and in the interest of justice, it was observed that 'if the petitioner deposits the entire demand amount, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law'. The order dated 04.03.2011 reads as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the stay application and having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds no reason to consider passing of an interim order in favour of the petitioner in terms as prayed for, i.e., of issuing interim mandamus to the respondents to issue conversion orders during the pendency of this writ petition. The stay application stands rejected. The stay application stands rejected. After dictation of this much of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount of the demand as raised by the respondents subject to the decision of the writ petition. In view of these submissions and in the interest of justice, it is observed that if the petitioner deposits the entire demand amount, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law." 6. The petitioner has now moved the application (IA No. 10191/2011) with the submissions that the respondents are deliberately flouting the order passed by this Court on 04.03.2011 and despite his having deposited the requisite amount, an order has now been issued on 10.05.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit the conversion application under the Rules of 2007 and with further directions for filing three copies of the plan showing 40% area to be reserved for public utilities. While placing on record the said order dated 10.05.2011 as Annexure-13, it is contended that the same has been issued in a wholly arbitrary manner and only in order to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner has fulfilled the requisites and has complied with the orders passed by this Court, the necessary conversion order should be issued and the District Collector, Barmer should be directed forthwith to issue the conversion order under the Rules of 1992. 7. The dispute regarding applicability of the Rules of 2007 is the subject-matter of this writ petition and the co-related questions are yet to be adjudicated. 8. On 04.03.2011, this Court found no reason for issuing interim mandamus so as to direct the respondents to issue conversion order but the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, of his readiness to deposit the entire amount of demand subject to decision of this writ petition, were taken note of and it was observed that if the petitioner deposits the entire amount, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law. 9. At this stage and juncture, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the order dated 10.05.2011 as thereafter issued by the Collector, Barmer is not in conformity with law. The Collector has taken note of the order passed by this Court and has directed the petitioner to make the requisite deposit and to submit necessary application with proper site plan. The Collector has taken note of the order passed by this Court and has directed the petitioner to make the requisite deposit and to submit necessary application with proper site plan. Ultimately, the rights of the petitioner are to be adjudicated in this writ petition and it cannot be pronounced at this juncture that all the actions as taken by the respondents are contrary to law. 10. The petitioner is, of course, free to comply with the requirements of the order dated 10.05.2011, if so desired and thereupon, again, the Collector may proceed in accordance with law but at this juncture and stage, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus against the respondents. 11. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner has made any deposit pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2011 but seeks to contend against the propositions as stated in the order dated 10.05.2011 (Annex.13), he shall be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited without prejudice to his rights in this writ petition. 12. Subject to the observations aforesaid, the application (IA No. 10191/2011) stands rejected.Interim Application dismissed. *******