ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against communications dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure-17) & dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-18) issued by District Collector, Hanumangarh ('the Collector') and order dated 16.05.2017 (Annexure-19) issued by Tehsildar (Revenue), Tibbi ('the Tehsildar'). 2. The petitioner applied for conversion of agricultural land for residential purposes under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 1992 ('Rules of 1992'). By order dated 12.04.2004 (Annexure-3) land ad measuring 360 hectare i.e. 3600 square meter was converted for residential purposes. 3. The petitioner where after by his application dated 04.06.2015 applied under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007 ('Rules of 2007') for change in purpose of conversion from residential to commercial. 4. On the said application, the Collector sought information from the Tehsildar on several aspects as detailed in his letter dated 04.6.2015 (Annexure-9). The Tehsildar vide his communication dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-10), inter alia, informed that on the land in question godowns were constructed and the present DLC rate of the proposed land was Rs. 11,47,990/- per hectare. 5. A communication dated 17.09.2016/21.09.2016 (Annexure-11) was issued by the Collector to the petitioner to respond to the aspect that the land in question was converted by order dated 12.04.2004 for residential purposes and under Rules of 1992 without seeking prior permission, the land could not be used for any other purpose and as per the report of Tehsildar there were godowns constructed on the land in question, therefore, whether any permission was sought before construction of the godowns. 6. The petitioner responded to the said communication dated 17.09.2016, inter alia, indicating that the land was got converted for residential purpose and since conversion the land was being used for godowns and besides godowns, a house is constructed, wherein, an employee is residing. 7. The Collector sought the Tehsildar again by his communication dated 15.12.2016 to send the present DLC rate, which was responded to by letter dated 30.01.2017 indicating the commercial DLC rate of Rs. 4,530/- per square meter. On 28.03.2017 the Collector sought the Tehsildar to send the DLC rate pertaining to agricultural land, which was again responded by communication dated 30.03.2017 indicating the DLC rate at Rs. 19,13,320/- per hectare for Nali land and Rs. 4,530/- per square meter. On 28.03.2017 the Collector sought the Tehsildar to send the DLC rate pertaining to agricultural land, which was again responded by communication dated 30.03.2017 indicating the DLC rate at Rs. 19,13,320/- per hectare for Nali land and Rs. 12,62,790/- per hectare for Nahari land. 8. By impugned communication dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure-17) the petitioner was called upon to deposit conversion charges of Rs. 1,78,560/-. Again by impugned communication dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-18) the petitioner was called upon to deposit the amount demanded by communication dated 19.04.2017 and it was indicated that as without conversion land converted for residential purposes was utilized for commercial purpose, the petitioner was required to deposit the said amount. 9. Where after the Tehsildar issued impugned notice dated 16.05.2017 (Annexure-19) calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of conversion, failing which, the proceedings for attachment of property would be initiated. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in demanding the huge amount of conversion charges as reflected in communication dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure-17) is wholly illegal. 11. With reference to the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007 it was submitted that the respondents can only charge the difference amount of premium i.e. the difference between the rate of conversion from agricultural to residential and agriculture to commercial as the petitioner had already paid the conversion charges for conversion from agricultural to residential. It was also submitted that the respondents were seeking to charge the petitioner under provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2007 by treating the application for regularization of unlawful conversion, wherein, the applicant is required to deposit four times of conversion charges. 12. It was vehemently submitted that admittedly the land in question was already converted from agricultural to residential and the petitioner was seeking to get the purpose of conversion changed from residential to commercial, which aspect was squarely governed by provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007 despite that the respondents were illegally seeking to charge huge conversion charges, which were ex facie illegal. 13. 13. It was also vehemently submitted that on account of substitution of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2007 by Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 ('the Amendment Rules 2012') (Annexure-5) a further provision has been made that the regularization can be made on application on payment of 25% of the conversion charges and on that count also the respondents were not justified in seeking huge conversion charges. 14. Further reference was made to various Circulars under the Rules of 2007 to emphasize that the demand of conversion charges at the rate was not justified and, therefore, the communications (Annexure-17 & 18) and the demand (Annexure-19) deserve to be quashed and set aside. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got his land converted under the Rules of 1992 from agricultural to residential by order dated 12.04.2004. It is also not in dispute that in the conditions stipulated in the order of conversion (Annexure-3) it was specifically stipulated that land would not be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which the same was converted. The fact that the land in question instead of being used for residential purpose was used for construction of godowns is also established from the report of the Tehsildar dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-10) and the response dated 16.12.2016 given by the petitioner (Annexure-12), which clearly establishes that though the land was got converted for residential purposes, the same was being used for commercial purposes by the petitioner. 17. Through application (Annexure-8) the petitioner sought change in purpose of conversion in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007. 18. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007 in so far as relevant reads as under:- "10. Change in purpose of Conversion. - (1) If a person, after the issue of conversion order under rule 9 for any specific purpose, intends to use it other non-agricultural purpose, he shall submit an application to the prescribed authority in Form "C" along with a challan indicating the difference amount of premium, if any." 19. Change in purpose of Conversion. - (1) If a person, after the issue of conversion order under rule 9 for any specific purpose, intends to use it other non-agricultural purpose, he shall submit an application to the prescribed authority in Form "C" along with a challan indicating the difference amount of premium, if any." 19. A bare look at the above Rule reveals that after conversion of land for any specific purpose, if any person intends to use it for other non-agricultural purpose, he can apply to the prescribed authority and the rate of premium has been indicated as the different amount of premium. 20. The said Rule presupposes that the applicant should have used the land for the specific purpose, for which, it was converted and was seeking to put the same to some other non-agricultural purpose, for which, he can seek permission under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007. However, apparently the said Rule would have no application to a case where the land is got converted for a specific purpose i.e. residential as in present case, but is already being put to some other non-agricultural purpose and then an application is filed under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2007 essentially seeking to get the said unauthorized use regularized by seeking conversion from residential to commercial. 21. As soon as the land is put to use other than for the specific purpose, for which, the same is got converted, the same would clearly be an unlawful conversion and if the petitioner wanted the said land to be converted to the purpose, for which, the same had already been put to use, the only relevant provision would be Rule 13, which reads as under:- "13. Regularization of unlawful conversion- (1) If a person who used agriculture land for any non-agriculture purpose without permission shall submit an application for regularization of the conversion to the prescribed authority along with a copy of the challan depositing the four times of the conversion charges as prescribed in rule 7." 22. The above provision clearly stipulates that if a person has used agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without permission he can apply for regularization of the conversion and he would be required to deposit four times of the conversion charges. 23. The above provision clearly stipulates that if a person has used agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without permission he can apply for regularization of the conversion and he would be required to deposit four times of the conversion charges. 23. As already noticed hereinbefore, it was specifically stipulated in the conversion order dated 12.04.2004 that petitioners shall not use the land for any other purpose other than the purpose, for which, the land was converted. The land in question was converted for residential purposes but was being used for commercial purposes, which is clearly use of land for non-agricultural purpose without permission and, consequently, the case of the petitioner would be governed by provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2007 only and, therefore, the respondents were justified in raising the demand as raised vide Annexure-17, 18 and 19. 24. So far as the reliance placed on the Amendment Rules 2012 is concerned, the reliance placed is totally misplaced. The petitioner has filed the Hindi version of the Amendment Rules 2012 and much arguments were raised in seeking to emphasize that the word ^^vUrj.k** indicated in proviso to Rule 11 means 'conversion'. Though the word ^^vUrj.k** clearly means 'transfer' only, the English version of the amendment reads as under:- "11. Transfer of land converted for Non-Agricultural purpose. - Any land duly converted for any non-agricultural purpose under these rules, may be transferred: Provided that any transfer made without permission from the prescribed authority prior to commencement of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 may be regularized by the prescribed authority on application made by the transferee along with payment of 25% of the conversion charges." 25. The above rule merely provides that if the 'transfer' takes place without permission from the prescribed authority, the same may be regularized on payment of 25% of the conversion charges. Admittedly, present is not a case of any transfer without permission, the case is of conversion to commercial purpose without permission and, therefore, the said Rule has no application to the facts of the present case. 26. Admittedly, present is not a case of any transfer without permission, the case is of conversion to commercial purpose without permission and, therefore, the said Rule has no application to the facts of the present case. 26. The reliance placed on the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 (Annexure-20) also has no application, inasmuch as, the amendment of Rule 10 is only for the purpose of providing for applications online and does not change the tenor and nature of the provision, which as already discussed above, would have no application in case the land is not put to use as per the conversion order. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.