JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The petitioner-firm, in an auction conducted on 03.03.1990 was successful having offered highest bid of Rs.10,02,000/- while depositing 25% of the bid amount on the spot. The auction was, therefore, finalized in favour of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner firm deposited the remaining amount and annual rent on 18.04.1990. Petitioner was given possession of the aforesaid cinema plot on 19.06.1990 and is having peaceful possession of the subject land ad measuring 5325 Sq. Yards commonly known as ‘Cinema Plot’. In the adjoining plot, there is Gurudwara on one side and Ganesh Temple on the other. The people objected to the construction of cinema theatre on the aforesaid land as according to them, construction and exhibition of films amidst religious temple and Gurudwara will adversely hurt their religious sentiments. The respondents accordingly did not give permission for construction of cinema theatre on the plot in question for almost 14 years. 2. The petitioner in the changed circumstances finding that the construction of cinema theatre on the said land is impossible and found its huge investment of sum of rupees 15 lacs (including the cost of land, stamp duty, lease rent etc.) made in 1990 going in vain, made an application/representation dated 29.07.2004 to the then Revenue Minister and sought permission for construction of shops on the subject land, which would work as a catalyst in the development of the Mandi Area. Meanwhile, the Government too clarified vide its order dated 21.12.2005 that as per Condition No.24 of the Rajasthan Colonization Conditions, 1973, the State Government can dispose off the land as per its discretion. The Deputy Secretary further clarified that the land be converted as per conversion Rules issued by the Urban Development Department and the land be converted under intimation to the State Government, Colonization Department. 3. The question therefore arose as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay the conversion charges from cinema to commercial. 4. The Deputy Secretary further clarified that the land be converted as per conversion Rules issued by the Urban Development Department and the land be converted under intimation to the State Government, Colonization Department. 3. The question therefore arose as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay the conversion charges from cinema to commercial. 4. Since the petitioner had already paid the amount towards the auction plot considering it to be commercial, he made a representation on 24.4.2010 to the Secretary, Mandi Vikas Simiti inviting attention towards Notification No.3/2010 dated 16.04.2010 issued by the Urban Development Department, wherein it was clearly provided in Rule 2.2 that the category of cinema plot is that of commercial and no conversion charges are payable for conversion of cinema land for the purpose of commercial construction/construction of shops. In light of the said notification dated 16.04.2010, the petitioner requested the respondent No.4 Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Bikaner to grant permission in compliance of the Government order dated 7.5.2005. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner’s case/representation was placed in a meeting of the Mandi Vikas Samiti headed by its Chairman, District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 28.05.2010. The petitioner’s case was discussed in detail vide Agenda Item No.8 in presence of Deputy Town Planner, Command Area Development, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Bikaner and Secretary of Mandi Vikas Samiti. During the course of deliberation, the Deputy town Planner stated that Urban Conversion Rules are applicable in the Mandi area and in view of point No.2 of the notification dated 16.04.2010, no conversion charges are payable for change of land use from cinema to commercial plots/land. In light of such submission and the Govt. orders dated 7.5.2005 and 21.12.2005, it was unanimously decided to grant permission for cinema plot auctioned to the petitioner-firm for being used for commercial/business use. However, the Samiti decided to seek concurrence of the State Government and it was resolved that the Mandi Secretary would issue necessary orders after receipt of such concurrence. 6. The Mandi Secretary – respondent No.4 accordingly wrote a letter dated 12.07.2010 to the respondent No.2, Deputy Secretary (Colonization) asking concurrence of the State Government. The State Government sent an order dated 13.05.2011 clearly stating that in light of the earlier orders dated 7.5.2005 and 21.12.2005 issued by the Government, no concurrence of the State Government is required. 6. The Mandi Secretary – respondent No.4 accordingly wrote a letter dated 12.07.2010 to the respondent No.2, Deputy Secretary (Colonization) asking concurrence of the State Government. The State Government sent an order dated 13.05.2011 clearly stating that in light of the earlier orders dated 7.5.2005 and 21.12.2005 issued by the Government, no concurrence of the State Government is required. The respondent no.2 further directed that the Mandi Vikas Samiti to proceed in conformity with the decision already taken by it in the meeting dated 28.05.2010. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1495/2012 before this Court and a reply was also filed. The High Court after considering the submissions of the petitioner and the reply filed by the respondents decided the petition vide order dated 16.12.2016 which reads as under:- “Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was placed in a meeting of the Mandi Vikas Samiti headed by its Chairman, District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 28.5.2010 and as per Agenda item No.8, it was observed that no conversion charges are payable for change of the land use from cinema to commercial and it was unanimously decided to grant permission for cinema plot auctioned to the petitioner firm for being used for commercial use. However, the Secretary of the Mandi Vikas Samiti has adopted a stubborn attitude by not issuing the requisite order as resolved in the meeting dated 28.5.2010 forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. No Rule, Regulation or provision has been pointed to this Court which may enable this Court to conclude that the petitioner is liable to deposit the conversion charges, if any. A totally vague reply has been filed. It is evident that the State Government had clarified that the use of the land can be converted from cinema to commercial and that no conversion charges were leviable but the respondent Samiti for reasons best known is continued to keep the matter pending and till date not allowed the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the shops. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent States that another opportunity be granted to the Chairman to pass appropriate orders as the matter is still under consideration. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent States that another opportunity be granted to the Chairman to pass appropriate orders as the matter is still under consideration. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chairman cum District Collector to look into the matter and pass appropriate speaking order in the light of the above within a period of four weeks from today.” 6. On 08.09.2017, the respondents came up with an order dated 4.9.2017 which was passed in the meeting of the Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar held on 1.9.2017 in which the respondents took an absolute U-turn and rejected the application of the petitioner as per the directions given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004 Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. The present writ petition has therefore been filed challenging the order dated 4.9.2017. 8. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the land in question was already earmarked for establishment of cinema ad measuring 5325 sq. yard. The plot in question was sold out to the petitioner firm for establishment of cinema only. The land in question was sold out in one unit for establishment of cinema and therefore, the issue of change of land use from cinema to commercial shops does not arise in any manner. The land in question was purchased by the petitioner firm for establishment of cinema in the year 1990 and after paying entire amount of bid, the petitioner firm remained silent over the matter in relation to execution of lease deed with ill-intention as well as to achieve ulterior motive and the petitioner firm neither tried to get the execution of lease deed of aforesaid cinema plot and nor tried to do so in any manner and therefore, the Mandi Development Committee issued notice dated 3.3.1998 whereby, the petitioner firm was directed to execute the lease deed of aforesaid cinema plot. After issuing notice dated 3.3.1998, the petitioner firm neither tried to execute the lease deed of aforesaid cinema plot nor tried to do so in any manner and therefore, while issuing notice dated 11.09.1998, the petitioner firm again served with notice for execution of lease deed and failing which, the matter will be proceeded as per relevant rules for necessary action. As per mandatory requirements of aforesaid allotment, the petitioner was under obligation to raise the construction over the land in question within stipulated time failing which, the grant is liable to be resumed in favour of the State without payment of any compensation to the purchaser. The petitioner firm neither raised construction over the land in question for which purpose, land in question was leased out and nor filed any such application for extension of time to raise construction over the land in question uptill today. Therefore, it is clear that the land in question was leased out in favour of petitioner firm for establishment of cinema over the land in question but till today, the petitioner firm not raised any construction over the land in question and trying to get the permission of the change of land use without there being any reason and therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner firm is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 9. Reliance is placed on the Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of Land Use) Rules, 2000 to say that no person can 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 Authority, any municipality, and other local authority, otherwise than as specified under a Master Plan. Further, the rules of 2000 were repealed and as per new Act of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, certain restrictions laid down for change of use of land. As per Rule 4(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of land use) Rules, 2000 and Rule 3(4) of the new Act of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 vide which the Rules of 2000 were repealed, it is clear that cinema and commercial are two separate usage and therefore, the use of land cannot be converted from cinema to commercial. Further, the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004) decided on 8.8.2017 whereby the High Court has directed to the State Authority to proceed only as per the development plan. 10. Further, the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004) decided on 8.8.2017 whereby the High Court has directed to the State Authority to proceed only as per the development plan. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the various documents placed on record, the following issues arise that require to be dealt with:- (a) Whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was for commercial purpose or cinema? (b) Whether it is possible to construct a cinema on the plot in question? (c) Whether the conversion from cinema to commercial is permissible under the Rules or not? (d) Whether the conversion charges are required to be paid for use of land from cinema to commercial in the facts of the present case? (e) Whether the construction of shops is against the spirit of judgment rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari? (a) Whether the plot allotted to the petitioner was for commercial purpose or cinema? 11. Copy of the lease deed dated 6.10.1998 has been placed on record as Annexure-4. A perusal of the lease deed shows that the plot in question was allotted for commercial purpose but the plot was named as cinema plot and the site was considered as cinema site. The relevant part of the lease is reproduced below:- “Deed of sale of lease Hold Rights in land in Plot No. Cinema Plot Sector No. Cinema Site mandi Gharsana. This grant made of this 6 th October day of 1998 by the Governor of Rajasthan (hereinafter called the seller) in favour of Shri Rajasthan Construction Company at Hanumangarh Town son of Shri Partners Caste – - resident of Hanumangarh Town hereinafter called the purchaser). Whereas the land hereinafter described in owned by the Government in full properitory rights & has been sold to the purchaser at a public auction by allotment under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale and allotment of land in Mandies in the Bhakhra and Rajasthan Canal Project Colony Areas) Conditions, 1973 and subjects to the conditions contained therein and in this grand and for the purpose of Commercial. And whereas the purchaser has paid the sum of Rs.10,02,000/- + one year lease rent Rs.20768/- being the price and premium of the said land.” Admittedly, various requests were sent by the petitioner-firm at the initial stage for permission to allow him to construct the cinema. It is not disputed that such permission is necessary before start of construction. Thus, the petitioner knew that although the lease deed was for ‘commercial purpose’ but cinema was to be constructed on the plot. (b) Whether it is possible to construct a cinema on the plot in question? 12. It is admitted by the respondents that the said plot was near Gurudwara and Ganesh Temple. Complaints were also received by the Mandi Samiti. This fact duly finds mentioned in the report of Secretary of the Mandi Samiti and therefore, no formal permission to make the construction of cinema was granted to the petitioner. The averment in para 7 of the petition that people raised hue and cry against upcoming cinema theatre and exerted moral and political pressure upon the administration not to permit construction of cinema on the plot in question is not denied in the reply. 13. In these circumstances, there is nothing to disbelieve the petitioner that the construction of cinema on the site in question was next to impossible with no support of the State Authorities for ensuring that cinema will be allowed to run on the site peacefully and without any disturbance. Thus, it is evident that the construction of cinema on the said plot was out of question & nor advisable. Even otherwise, the construction of cinema between Gurudwara and Temple does not appeal to aesthetic sense. (c) Whether the conversion from cinema to commercial is permissible under the Rules or not? 14. The respondent-State have themselves reproduced the Rajasthan Municipalities (change of land use) Rules, 2000. Rule 3 reads thus:- “3. Even otherwise, the construction of cinema between Gurudwara and Temple does not appeal to aesthetic sense. (c) Whether the conversion from cinema to commercial is permissible under the Rules or not? 14. The respondent-State have themselves reproduced the Rajasthan Municipalities (change of land use) Rules, 2000. Rule 3 reads thus:- “3. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the State Government or any authority authorised by it by notification in the Official Gazette, may allowe the owner or holder of any such land to have change of use thereof, if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, on payment of conversion charges at such rates and in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to the following changes in use:- (I) From residential to commercial or any other purposes; or (II) From commercial to any other purpose; or (III) From industrial to commercial or any other purpose; or (IV) From cinema to commercial or any other purpose; Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purpose. The rules of 2000 were repealed and new Act of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 came in force and as per the new Act:- “3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) of sub section (2), the State Government or any authority authorised by it by notification in the Official Gazette, may allow the owner or holder of any such land to have change of use thereof, if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, on payment of conversion charges at such rates and after inviting and hearing objections from the neighbourhood in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to the following changes in use, namely:- I. From residential to commercial or any other purpose; or II. From commercial to any other purpose: or III. From industrial to commercial or any other purpose; or IV. From cinema to commercial or any other purpose; V. From hotel to commercial or any other purpose; or VI. From tourism to commercial or any other purpose; or VII. From institutional to commercial or any other purpose; Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes.” 15. From the above, it is evident that the rules permit the change of use from cinema to commercial subject to the compliance of guidelines and rules. 16. From institutional to commercial or any other purpose; Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes.” 15. From the above, it is evident that the rules permit the change of use from cinema to commercial subject to the compliance of guidelines and rules. 16. In fact, it is not disputed by the respondents that the application of the petitioner firm was proceeded as per rules, circulars and notifications of the Urban Development Department and that it was intimated to the petitioner firm to give consent for regularisation as well as conversion of aforesaid land from cinema to commercial shop with certain charges. Thus, respondents cannot take objection that the said land cannot be converted from cinema to commercial as it is their own case that they were ready to allow the petitioner to change the land use from cinema to shops subject to the payment of conversion charges. 17. Moreover, it has already been discussed above that how the construction of cinema is next to impossible on the plot in question. On the other side, there appears to be no impediment in the construction of shops especially taking into account that the lease deed in any case was issued as ‘Commercial’ and the construction of cinema did not find favour with the public. (d) Whether the conversion charges are required to be paid for use of land from cinema to commercial in the facts of the present case? 18. The lease deed has been reproduced above. It is evident from the said lease deed that although a cinema was required to be constructed on the said plot, the lease deed was signed by treating it for the purpose of ‘commercial use’, thereby, charging the commercial rate. Thus, the petitioner had already paid the charges towards use of the said plot for commercial purposes. This fact is also admitted in the report dated 10.11.2003 furnished to the Deputy Secretary (Colonisation) Jaipur wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said cinema plot was auctioned as the “Commercial” plot and also the reserve price and the calculation of the lease rent of this plot was also fixed treating the cinema plot as the commercial plot. (e) Whether the conversion from cinema to commercial is against the spirit of directions rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari? 19. (e) Whether the conversion from cinema to commercial is against the spirit of directions rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari? 19. Firstly, the respondents themselves have stated that the land in question falls in Mandi area of Gharsana and the same was neither notified nor transferred to the Municipalities or Urban Development Department. On the other side, they themselves have placed on record the proposed lay out of the commercial plan of Gharsana showing the plot in question as reserved for cinema. The relevant directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari vide a detailed order dated 8.8.2017 are as under:- “(i) The Development Authorities and the State Government shall ensure that Master Development Plan of a city or town prepared under the relevant statutes is a comprehensive and self explanatory document providing for preservation, conservation and development of eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, peripheral control belt, natural scenery, city forest, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping as also allocation of land for different uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural complexes, tourist complexes, open spaces, garden, recreation centres, amusement parks, zoological gardens, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts etc. (iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all development schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be. (iv) Once the Master Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant implementation thereof shall be the rule and any deviation therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with the authority or the State Government for modification thereof during its operative period shall be exercised sparingly in larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to subserve interest of an individual.” 20. This Court has already discussed that the construction of cinema is in fact against the public interest and not vice versa. The lease of the plot in any case was executed as commercial. Thus, shopping complex does not change the basic character of the plan. This Court has already discussed that the construction of cinema is in fact against the public interest and not vice versa. The lease of the plot in any case was executed as commercial. Thus, shopping complex does not change the basic character of the plan. The use of the land from commercial to cinema and from cinema to commercial is almost interchangeable as per the rules reproduced above. In the facts as narrated above, the respondents appear to have taken shelter of the directions issued in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) as an after thought to escape the contempt after the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court. Thus, this Court finds no impediment in the way of the authority in allowing the petitioner to raise a shopping complex instead of cinema and to my mind, is not in any manner against the spirit of the judgment rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra). 21. In the end, this Court may note that in spite of the clarification of the State Government that the use of the land can be converted from cinema to commercial and that no conversion charges were leviable, the respondent samiti for the reasons best known continued to keep the matter pending and did not allow the petitioner to proceed either with the construction of cinema or shops. In fact, the hurdle in the way of the petitioner firm to construct the cinema at the first instance and thereafter to keep the application of the petitioner for conversion from cinema to shops was kept pending for all these years till as such time a direction was issued by this Court on 16.12.2016 to take a final decision. The Court almost allowed the petition on the said day but on the request of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that they be permitted to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of to permit the respondents to pass appropriate order but the respondents did not even pass an order till as such time the contempt petition was filed and that too by simply rejecting the application after number of years on the ground that no conversion could be allowed in view of the directions issued in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra). The delay has caused the petitioner not only great financial loss as he could not put to use the land which was allotted to him after investing huge amount of money but also mental harassment. 22. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to allow the change of land use from cinema to shops without insisting upon the conversion charges and after completing the necessary formalities for the same. It goes without saying that the said construction will be in keeping with the building laws, rules and regulations including the parking ares etc. and as directed in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra). S.B. Writ Contempt No. 313 / 2017 23. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it proper to proceed with the contempt petition. 24. The contempt petition is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.