ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the notice issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar, directing the petitioner to stop the commercial activity in the residential plot. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner herein purchased a plot measuring 1591 sq. ft. situated in Ward No.20, Nohar from Jasvinder Singh s/o Maghar Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Indrajeet Singh sons of Jasinder Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 30.5.12. According to the petitioner, the said plot is part of the land measuring 630 sq. yard covered by a patta issued by the Municipal Board, Nohar in favour of Shri Gheesa Ram s/o Shri Mewaram Regar and Shri Laduram s/o Shri Nanuram Regar, who had sold various plots after sub division of the land covered by the said patta. 3. After purchasing the plot as aforesaid, the petitioner made an application for the change of the land use from residential to commercial under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Area Conversion of Land Use Rules, 2010 (for short the Rules of 2010). The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board issued a public notice dated 22.8.13 inviting objection against the conversion prayed for. The petitioner also deposited the conversion charges as per the determination made by the Municipal Board. A perusal of the proceedings reveals that after conversion charges being deposited by the petitioner, the matter was referred by the Municipal Board to the Senior Town Planner, Bikaner for technical sanction. It is not disputed before this court that no order permitting the change of the land use has been issued by the Municipal Board till this date. It is also not disputed before this court that without there being an order passed by the Municipal Board permitting the change of the land use, the petitioner proceeded to raise the construction for commercial purposes. 4. Aggrieved by the commercial use of the disputed land situated in residential area, Shri Rameshwar Lal and Shri Gurdayal, who are residents of Ward No.20, filed a suit for injunction accompanied by an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the petitioner and others. 4. Aggrieved by the commercial use of the disputed land situated in residential area, Shri Rameshwar Lal and Shri Gurdayal, who are residents of Ward No.20, filed a suit for injunction accompanied by an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the petitioner and others. The application preferred for temporary injunction was allowed by the Court of Civil Judge, Nohar vide order dated 17.3.16, whereby the non applicants therein which include the petitioner were restrained from raising construction of new godown in Ward No.20 of the town Nohar. 5. At the same time, Rameshwar Lal made a complaint to the Director, Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, who in its turn vide communication dated 30.9.16, sought explanation from the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar as to why the conversion charges were accepted from the petitioner herein without conversion order being passed. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar, vide communication dated 30.11.16 informed the petitioner to take the refund of the amount of Rs.38,940/- deposited by him stating that the proceeding for change of the land use in his case has not been concluded in accordance with rules. Now, under the oral instructions of the Director, Local Bodies, the petitioner has been directed to stop the commercial activities in the residential plot within a period of 7 days. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a suit preferred questioning the commercial use of the disputed plot is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, the action of the Executive Officer in directing the petitioner to stop the commercial activities just on oral instructions of the Director, Local Bodies, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent having accepted the conversion charges, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the commercial use of the premises constructed by him by making huge investment. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, a notice was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar inviting objections against the proposed change of land use, however, no objections whatsoever were received and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the conversion charges as determined and thus, for all practical purposes the change of land use stands permitted by the Municipal Board. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, a notice was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar inviting objections against the proposed change of land use, however, no objections whatsoever were received and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the conversion charges as determined and thus, for all practical purposes the change of land use stands permitted by the Municipal Board. Learned counsel submitted that in the original patta issued in favour of Ghisaram and Laduram, the land use was not defined and therefore, even otherwise, the plot in question is open to be used for any purposes. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the plot in question is located in residential colony and therefore, nothing turns on the question that in the patta issued by the Municipal Board, Nohar in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in title does not specify the land use. It is also not in dispute that in the Master Plan of the town the area wherein the disputed plot is situated is earmarked as residential area. 9. As laid down by this court vide order dated 12.1.17 in the matter of Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan [D.B.Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/04], the different land uses as specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan as the case may be, forms basic character of the plan and the land use as specified cannot be permitted to be changed without alteration/modification of the plan after following the procedure laid down under the relevant statute and further that the change of the land use to be permitted by way of modification of plan must be in furtherance of planned development of city or town in larger public interest and not to sub-serve the interest of an individual. 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Master Plan of the town stands altered or modified so as to permit the change of user of the land in the locality from residential to commercial or for mixed user keeping in view the larger public interest. Moreover, merely because the petitioner deposited the amount of conversion charges, without there being an order permitting the change of land use being issued by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot be permitted to put the land to the commercial use. Moreover, merely because the petitioner deposited the amount of conversion charges, without there being an order permitting the change of land use being issued by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot be permitted to put the land to the commercial use. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has raised the construction over the disputed land for commercial purpose after obtaining the requisite sanction from the Municipal Board. To put in other words, without there being an order issued by the competent authority permitting the change of land use from residential to commercial, the land held by the petitioner continues to be residential land and thus, the petitioner cannot claim any right to use the residential land for commercial purposes. In this view of the matter, the action of the Municipal Board in directing the petitioner to stop the commercial activity in the residential land cannot be faulted with. 11. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 12. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.