Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1864 (RAJ)

Shanti Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2012-08-30

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The petitioner is/was the recorded tenant of agricultural land in Khasra Nos.447 and 451 in Village Bhora, Tehsil Digod, District Kota. He applied for conversion of 1000 sq. yard of land in Khasra Nos.451 from agricultural use to commercial use. The Tehsildar, Digod, District Kota issued orders on 28.07.1994 and 11.08.1994 wherein the land of the petitioner to an extent of 1000 sq. yard in Khasra No.451 was converted from agricultural use to commercial use. The factum of conversion of 1000 sq. yard of land in Khasra No.451 from agricultural to commercial was recorded in the Jamabandi (records of right) of Samvat 2053 to 2056. However, in the Jamabandi (Records of right) of Samvat 2057 to 2060, the entry relating to conversion of 1000 sq. yard of land in Khasra No.451 was reverted to the agricultural use in view of the order of revocation dated 21.03.2002. 2. Aggrieved of the order of revocation dated 21.03.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.1370/2006 before this Court. Vide order dated 06.03.2009, this Court found that the revocation of the orders of conversion passed on 28.07.1994 and 11.08.1994 by the Tehsildar was liable to be set aside for being vitiated by contravention of the principles of natural justice. So holding, this Court required the matter to be reconsidered by the Collector, Kota after hearing the petitioner. 3. Following the order dated 06.03.2009 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.1370/2006, the Collector, Kota considered the matter, heard the petitioner and vide order dated 01.10.2009 revoked the orders for conversion passed by the Tehsildar on 28.07.1994 and 11.08.1994 on the ground that the parcel of land in issue was adjacent to the National Highway No.76 and the order of conversion could not have been passed without consent / no objection from the Public Works Department and was contrary to Rule 4(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural purposes in Rural Areas), Rules 1992 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1992'). 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent-State and perused the writ petition and annexures thereto. 5. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent-State and perused the writ petition and annexures thereto. 5. In my considered view, the conversion of the petitioner's agricultural land under the orders of Naib Tehsildar passed on 28.07.1994 and 11.08.1994 being contrary to the Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1992, there is no illegality in the order of the Collector, Kota which warrants interference of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I however find that the petitioner subsequent to the revocation of the permission for conversion of land would be entitled to refund of the charges paid for the conversion of his land from agricultural use to commercial use (now revoked). The amount paid by the petitioner was consequent to an order passed by a State functionary and subsequently revoked for reasons of having been passed contrary to the obtaining law. In the facts of the case, it is quite apparent that the money was paid by the petitioner under a mistake consequent to the orders of conversion dated 28.07.1994 and 11.08.1994, passed by the Naib Tehsildar and is liable to be refunded. In these circumstances, it would only be just and proper to direct the State that the amount paid by the petitioner for conversion of 1000 sq. yard of land in Khasra No.451 in Village Bhora from agricultural use to commercial use be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of four months from today. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Stay application needs no address as the writ petition has been disposed of.