Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—These three writ petitions are disposed by this common order. 2. The facts are illustratively taken from S.B. CWP No. 788/2012-Gandhi Vidya Mandir vs. State and Ors. 3. The petitioner Gandhi Vidya Mandir, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was allotted a huge chunk of land way back in the year 1951-52 by the State Government for the purpose of setting up of educational institution in the town of Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu. Initially 429 bighas and 8 biswas of land was allotted to the petitioner-society vide letter dtd. 1.6.1951. By yet another letter dtd. 14.6.1952, the Collector, Churu allotted 3082 bighas and 19 biswas of land to the petitioner-Society. 4. The learned counsels for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact 50 educational institutions are being run by the petitioner-society on the said land and the respondent-Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu is not entitled to demand any conversion charges for the alleged use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, nor the respondent Municipal Board could restrict the on-going construction activities on the part of the said land allotted to the petitioner-society when they were undertaking such construction in the year 2008-2009 and therefore, aggrieved by the notice and the communications issued by the respondent-Municipal Board demanding such conversion charges requiring the petitioner and deposit the same under the provisions of Section 173A of the Act and also to comply with the conditions of Section 170 of the Act for raising such construction only with the approval of the maps and sanction by the respondent-Municipal Board within whose jurisdiction the entire area including the land in question admittedly falls and not to undertake any construction activity without such prior approval of the respondent-Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. 5. In SBCWP No. 788/2012 - Gandhi Vidya Mandir vs. State and Ors. argued by Mr. J.P. Joshi, Sr. Advocate by the communication dtd. 28.12.2011 (Annex. 14), the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar demanded the conversion charges to the tune of Rs. 33,55,39,020/- (Thirty Three Crores Fifty Five lacs Thirty Nine Thousand and Twenty) for 5592317 sq. yards of agricultural land and such conversion/regularisation charges at Rs. 40/- per sq. meters to the tune of Rs. 22,36,92,680/- (Twenty Two Crores Thirty Six Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) and lease amount of Rs. 11,18,46,340/-, total a sum of Rs. 33,55,39,020/- (Thirty Three Crores Fifty Five lacs Thirty Nine Thousand and Twenty) for 5592317 sq. yards of agricultural land and such conversion/regularisation charges at Rs. 40/- per sq. meters to the tune of Rs. 22,36,92,680/- (Twenty Two Crores Thirty Six Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) and lease amount of Rs. 11,18,46,340/-, total a sum of Rs. 33,55,39,020/- (Thirty Three Crores Fifty Five Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand and Twenty). Vide communication Annex. 15 dtd. 11.1.2012, the Executive Officer of the said Municipal Board also called upon the petitioner-institution to stop construction work till such conversion charges are paid by them. 6. The prayers made in this writ petition are as under: "(i) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the notice dated 28.12.2011 and 11.1.2012 (Annex. 14 and 15) issued by the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent Municipal Board may be directed not to interfere in the construction activity of the petitioner. (iii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, it may be declared that the respondent-Municipal Board is not entitled to demand conversion charges from the petitioner Society so long the petitioner Society erects any building for educational purposes. (iv) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondents may also further restrained from interfering in the construction activities being carried out by the petitioner for educational purposes. (v) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (vi) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 7. In SBCWP No. 11412/2009 - Gandhi Vidya Mandir vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. argued by Mr. R.S. Saluja vide Annex. 14 dtd. 21.8.2009, the said Executive Officer called upon the petitioner-institution to shop the construction without approval of the map in question by the Municipal Authority under Section 170 of the Act. The petitioner filed reply thereto vide Annex 15 dtd. 24.8.2009 and submitted that the construction was being raised for educational purposes and not for private purposes and therefore, they are not in violation of Section 170 of the Act. The petitioner filed reply thereto vide Annex 15 dtd. 24.8.2009 and submitted that the construction was being raised for educational purposes and not for private purposes and therefore, they are not in violation of Section 170 of the Act. The Executive Officer again wrote back to the petitioner-institution that no construction can be raised without prior sanction of the municipal authorities and therefore, no such illegal construction may be raised by the petitioner. Vide Annex. 18 dtd. 23.10.2009, the District Collector also communicated to the SDO, Sardarshahar that in the land recorded in the name of petitioner-Society, on large portions of land without conversion of land use, the same was being used for commercial purposes and therefore, the appropriate proceedings under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act may also be initiated in the matter. The SDO, Sardarshahar accordingly communicated vide Annex. 19 dtd. 3.11.2009 to the Registrar of the petitioner-Society that since the part of the land in question was being used for commercial purposes and whether lay out plan of construction and map for construction were got approved from the local Municipal Board or not, the petitioner may show cause in that regard. 8. The prayers made in this writ petition are as under: "(A) That, the Annex. 14, 15, 18 and 19 dated 21.8.2009, 9.9.2009, 23.10.2009 and 3.11.2009 respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B) That, Respondents may kindly be restrained from insisting upon the Petitioner for seeking permission in accordance with Sec. 170(1) of the Act of 1959 so long the construction is being raised in consonance with provision of 170(2) of the Act of 1959. (C) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner; (D) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 9. In SBCWP No. 10703/2009 filed by Mr. Manish Shishodia, the same communication dtd. 23.10.2009 (Ex.26) of the Dist. Collector, Churu to the SDO, Sardarshahar is in question. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to the respondent Municipal Board vide Annex.25 dtd. 22.6.2009. 10. The prayers made in this writ petition are as under: "(i) That the Order Ex. 12 dated 26.8.08, Ex 15. Dated 23.1.09 and Ex. 23.10.2009 (Ex.26) of the Dist. Collector, Churu to the SDO, Sardarshahar is in question. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to the respondent Municipal Board vide Annex.25 dtd. 22.6.2009. 10. The prayers made in this writ petition are as under: "(i) That the Order Ex. 12 dated 26.8.08, Ex 15. Dated 23.1.09 and Ex. 26 dated 23.10.09 may kindly be quashed; (ii) That it may be declared that the Audit Objection/Audit Report cannot take away the property right of the petitioner institution. (iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble court consider proper may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner." 11. The sum and substance of these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner-Society before this Court is that the respondent -Municipal Board, Sardarshahar is not entitled to demand any conversion charges from the petitioner-Society, which was allotted such agricultural land for setting up of educational institution way back in the year 1951-1952, whereas the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 came on the statute book afterwards and also that since the educational institutions were being run for specified educational purpose for which allotment of land in question was made and which has now been declared as a deemed University, the respondent-Municipal Board also cannot demand such conversion charges. It was also contended before the Court that the respondent- Municipal Board also cannot even apply Section 170 of the Act to the petitioner -society for raising of such construction and construction was being illegally stopped by the respondent-Municipal Authorities. 12. On the contrary Mr. K.S. Yadav has filed reply to the writ petitions on behalf of respondent No. 4- Municipal Board and inter alia in para 2of the said reply, which is quested below, he has submitted that since the land in question was a large chunk of land, it was found by the Municipal Authorities that besides educational institutions being run by the petitioner-Society, several commercial activities were also found there on the said land. In the said para 2 of the reply, it has been pointed out that 13 Hotels, one petrol pump in the name and style of M/s. Roopchand Chhaganlal and a branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce are being run which are apparently not for educational purposes as claimed by the petitioner society and besides that even one 132 KV GSS set up by the RSEB, Agricultural Science Centre for nursery and a Dairy was also found on the said land, which also are not prima facie being operated by the petitioner-Educational institution and cannot be said to be activities for educational purposes. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was rightly called upon to show cause as to why under the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, firstly, the conversion charges may not be recovered from them in accordance with Section 173-A of the Act and why the construction may not be permitted to them without prior approval of the maps in question and sanction by the competent authority of the respondent-Municipal Board since the land in question is admittedly covered within the municipal limits of the respondent-Municipal board, Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu and the Act of 1959 would definitely apply to the petitioner as well as there is no exception granted to the petitioner in this regard. He, therefore, submitted that the applicability of the Act and the show cause notices of the respondent-Municipal board directly cannot be called in question before this Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should be directed to show cause before the respondent-Municipal Board itself and if they have any objections and submissions to make in this regard, they are definitely free to raise the same before the competent authority, who will decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law by proper adjudication and speaking order. Para 2 of the reply of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar is quoted below for ready reference: "2. That so far as the contents of para 1-11 are concerned, it is submitted that petitioners are wrong in contenting that they are raising construction only for educational purpose. Para 2 of the reply of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar is quoted below for ready reference: "2. That so far as the contents of para 1-11 are concerned, it is submitted that petitioners are wrong in contenting that they are raising construction only for educational purpose. It is submitted that within the campus itself the construction has been raised by RSEB for setting 132 KV, GSS, Agricultural Science Centre for nursery has been established, a dairy is being run, the office of PMC (Aapni Yojana) for water supply has been established, likewise, 13 hotels are being run within the campus premises, in regard to which civil suits are pending consideration under Transfer of Property Act, before the Court of competent jurisdiction. A petrol pump in the name of Roopchand Chaganlal is being operated within the premises, besides, a branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce is being run. Likewise, an office of Assistant Engineer, JVVNL is also being operated from the campus premises. Apart from aforesaid XEN office of PHED is also established in this premise itself. Out of all the activities as far as answering respondents are concerned, to their knowledge only the XEN office building of PHED, is established on acquired land, rest of the centers are on the land belonging to the petitioners for which necessary rent is being charged by the petitioners. However, the petitioners in the entire writ petition has projected, as if apart from educational purpose no business activity is being carried on. It is submitted that it was necessary for the respondents to see land use conversion for carrying on the aforesaid activities within the campus premises, however, the petitioners have never chosen to either seek any conversion of land use or permission for raising construction. It is submitted that as per the byelaws of the answering respondents, the petitioners were under an obligation to seek permission before raising any sort of construction within the campus premises." 13. Having perused the record and after hearing the learned counsels at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature. Having perused the record and after hearing the learned counsels at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature. The questions raised in the present writ petitions, namely as to whether the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 is applicable to the land in question and the petitioner-institution or not and whether the provision of Section 170 and 173A and other relevant provisions and byelaws are applicable to the petitioner or not and whether the conversion charges can be demanded from the petitioner or not and whether the petitioner is obliged to obtain prior permission from the respondent-Municipal Authorities or approval of map and sanction for raising such construction on the land in question are all questions, which are mixed questions of facts and law. 14. The notices and communications by the respondent- Municipal Board through its Executive Officer referred to above are merely show cause notices and communication calling upon the petitioner-institution to show cause and establish before the competent authority as to whether such conversion charges can be demanded from the petitioner-society or not and whether it is equally bound by the provisions of the Act of 1959 for seeking prior permission for raising construction and approval of maps etc. or not. Though some representations and replies appears to have been filed by the petitioner-society before the respondent-Executive Officer, it is clear from the record that no proper adjudication orders in this regard deciding such objections raised by the petitioner-society have been passed by the said Executive Officer or any other competent authority of the respondent-Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. 15. In absence of these questions having been decided without proper evidence on record and without findings of facts by the competent authority of the respondent-Municipal Board, it would be premature for this Court to pronounce upon the applicability of these provisions and validity of the levy of conversion charges sought to be raised against the petitioner-institution or the requirement of prior approval of the maps or sanction for construction. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that a big chunk of land was allotted to the petitioner, some portion of which is apparently being used for the purposes other than the educational purposes for which the petitioner was allotted this huge chunk of land of about 4000 bighas way back in the year 1951-52, as to how some portion of big chunk of this land was passed on to other private entrepreneurs or even Government departments on which hotels, petrol pump. GSS station, etc. came up, are all questions of facts which require an enquiry in the matter. Since the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner-society, burden lies upon the petitioner-Society to show as to how and how much portion of land in question has gone away from it and on the remaining portion also, whether conversion charges under Section 173A of the Act of 1959 can be demanded or not and whether the other provisions relating to sanction of map and construction permission etc. under Section 170 of the Act, can be applied to them or not. 16. Thus, all aforesaid mixed questions of facts and law are apparently yet to be properly adjudicated by the concerned authority of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. The provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 also provides for appeals and revisions before higher authorities in this regard. In view of complete mechanism provided under are law, this Court does not consider it expedient to decide these questions prematurely without adequate material on record in this regard. It is therefore considered necessary that the petitioner society should lay all proper material and evidence before the respondent-Municipal Board itself and the competent authority of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, namely, the Executive Officer should be directed to decide these questions by appropriate speaking adjudication order deciding the objections raised by the petitioner-society. 17. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar in the first instance on 4.3.2013. On that date or within a week thereafter, a show cause referring to the relevant provisions of the Act may be served by the said Executive officer of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar on the petitioner- Society or its authorized representative. The petitioner-Society is expected and directed to adduce necessary evidence and file reply to the show cause notices within 15 days therefrom. The petitioner-Society is expected and directed to adduce necessary evidence and file reply to the show cause notices within 15 days therefrom. Thereafter the respondent-Executive Officer of the Municipal Board may give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate speaking adjudication order deciding the objections of the petitioner -society in accordance with law. Such process may be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 months from today with no further extension of time permitted to either of the parties. It is needless to say that if the adjudication order (s) passed by the Executive Officer are against the petitioner-society, it will be free to avail the Departmental remedies provided under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 of appeal or revision, as the case may be, and the payment of conversion charges and other requirements relating to sanction for construction etc. will also abide by such orders to be passed by the authorities under the said Act. 18. With these observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. 19. Only for a period of three months from today as indicated above or till Executive Officer passes appropriate orders, whichever is earlier, no coercive process for recovery of conversion charges against the petitioner-society shall be undertaken by the respondent-Municipal Board.