Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 940 (RAJ)

Gayatri Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2017-04-10

M.N.BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to a decision of the respondents holding conversion of land use of the subject property necessary under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') and consequential communication dated 22.3.2012 asking the petitioner to complete the process for conversion of land. Brief facts of the case 2. It is stated that a land ad-measuring 4 bigha 11 biswa was allotted to one Jhumar Lal Tiwari in the year 1916 by the then State of Jaipur. The land was then purchased by Jhumar Lal Tiwari's son Govind Narain Tiwari in the year 1939 by paying a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards 'nazarana' to the then State of Jaipur. Govind Narain Tiwari executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner and Pradyumn Kumar Tiwari on 13.4.1957. The petitioner was desirous of developing a commercial complex in the subject property thus submitted site plan and map for its approval on 5.11.2007 to the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. No action was taken for approval of the map thus petitioner made several representations to the Corporation but she received no response other than to seek clarification to certain objections vide letter dated 29.11.2007. When no further response was given by the Corporation, petitioner served a notice for demand of justice on 27.9.2011. 3. The petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing CW 15488/2011 to challenge action of the respondents Corporation. It was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2011 to take remedies as are available under the law. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents but no response to it was given. A notice for contempt proceedings was served and it is thereupon that the letter dated 22.3.2012 was sent to the petitioner asking her to get the conversion of land as per section 182 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid thus preferred this writ petition. Submissions of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel submits that the land in question was recorded in the name of Govind Narain Tiwari on payment of 'nazarana' of Rs. 30,000/-. The sale deed was executed on 11.11.1943. The land is free hold and fall in the commercial area as per the master plan thus petitioner submitted the maps and building plan for construction of commercial complex. Learned counsel submits that the land in question was recorded in the name of Govind Narain Tiwari on payment of 'nazarana' of Rs. 30,000/-. The sale deed was executed on 11.11.1943. The land is free hold and fall in the commercial area as per the master plan thus petitioner submitted the maps and building plan for construction of commercial complex. The respondents have refused to approve building plan till land use of the subject property is changed as per section 182 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. It is in ignorance of the fact that the building plans were submitted for approval on 5.11.2007 thus should have been considered in the light of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959'). 5. The land in question was not allotted by the State of Rajasthan or the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, rather, it was by the then Jaipur State. As per section 173-A of the Act of 1959, conversion of land was not required because allotment by the then State does not bar land use for commercial purpose. As per master plan also, it is falling in the commercial area. The respondents have wrongly applied the Act of 2009 by treating the land in question to be 'gair mumkin abadi'. In the light of the facts given above, impugned letter dated 22.3.2012 deserves to be set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve building plans of commercial complex without asking the petitioner to get the land converted for commercial use with payment of conversion charges. 6. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Pareshar Soni", (2007) 14 SCC 144 has been given. The judgment therein was in reference of the same facts and provisions of law. The conversion of land is not necessary if it is used for the purpose shown in the master plan or for which it was allotted. 7. Further reference of the judgment of this court in the case of "Sanjeev Sachdeva & anr. v. State of Rajasthan & ors.", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13557/2013, decided on 5.5.2016 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been given. Therein, considering the provisions of the Act of 1959, similar action of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur was held to be illegal and, accordingly, demand of conversion charges was set aside. 8. v. State of Rajasthan & ors.", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13557/2013, decided on 5.5.2016 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been given. Therein, considering the provisions of the Act of 1959, similar action of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur was held to be illegal and, accordingly, demand of conversion charges was set aside. 8. Both the judgments cover the issue thus while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.3.2012, respondents may be directed to approve the building plans and maps for construction of commercial complex. Submissions of the respondents 9. Learned counsel for respondents has contested the writ petition. It is submitted that building plans were submitted by the petitioner for approval. It was for construction of commercial complex though allotment of land by the then State of Jaipur was not for commercial purpose. The sale deed was executed on 11.11.1943 but, therein also, it is not shown to be a sale of land for commercial purpose. The petitioner's case was examined at different level. The building plans were not approved in absence of change of land use and, therefore, petitioner was directed to get conversion of land for commercial use as per section 182 of the Act of 2009. 10. The Act of 1959 has no application after its repeal by the Act of 2009. The repeal and savings provided under section 344 of the Act of 2009 does not save it unless an order was passed or decision had been taken under the Act of 1959. The petitioner's prayer to consider her case under the Act of 1959 is nothing but to give life to the Act which does not exist. In view of above, petitioner's case was rightly considered under the Act of 2009. It requires conversion of the land for commercial use. 11. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) has no application because judgment therein was in reference to the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, that too, as per unamended provisions. The issue aforesaid was further clarified by the Apex Court in the case of "Municipal Corporation, Rajasthan v. Sanjeev Sachdeva & ors." (2013) 12 SCC 562 when similar prayer was declined by the Apex Court in view of the amendment in the Act of 1959. The matter was, however, remanded back to the Corporation to decide it afresh. 12. The issue aforesaid was further clarified by the Apex Court in the case of "Municipal Corporation, Rajasthan v. Sanjeev Sachdeva & ors." (2013) 12 SCC 562 when similar prayer was declined by the Apex Court in view of the amendment in the Act of 1959. The matter was, however, remanded back to the Corporation to decide it afresh. 12. The Single Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur subsequently decided CW 13557/2013 vide its order dated 5.5.2016 quashing the demand of conversion charges. The issue aforesaid was decided in reference to the Act of 1959 though it was clarified that position would be different if the Act of 2009 is applied. 13. In the instant case, the Act of 1959 cannot be applied, hence, case of the petitioner was rightly dealt with under the Act of 2009. Section 182 of the Act of 2009 requires conversion of land, if it is to be used for commercial purpose because allotment of land to the petitioner was not for commercial use but was for agriculture purpose. The petitioner has failed to prove allotment of land by the then Jaipur State for commercial purpose. The prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the writ petition. Finding of the Court 14. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 15. The brief facts of the case show allotment of land initially in the year 1916 followed by its sale on 11.11.1943. It was on payment of 'nazarana' of Rs. 30,000/-. The land was subsequently gifted to Pradyumn Kumar Tiwari and the petitioner vide gift deed dated 13.4.1957. The petitioner submitted building plans for its approval on 5.11.2007. The respondents initially sought clarification from the petitioner vide their letter dated 29.11.2007 but, thereupon, nothing was heard by the petitioner. She gave notice for demand of justice on 27.9.2011 followed by a writ petition in the year 2011. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2011 requiring her to take appropriate remedy and, accordingly, a detailed representation was submitted to the respondents. The petitioner was asked to get conversion of land under section 182 of the Act of 2009. 16. The record of the case shows that petitioner's case was processed from time to time and at different levels. The opinion of Additional Advocate General was also sought. The petitioner was asked to get conversion of land under section 182 of the Act of 2009. 16. The record of the case shows that petitioner's case was processed from time to time and at different levels. The opinion of Additional Advocate General was also sought. The matter was then sent to the Law Department to seek their opinion as well. The Law Department had given a detailed opinion after considering the judgment of the Apex Court and relevant provisions of law. The Corporation thereupon issued a letter dated 22.3.2012 requiring the petitioner to get conversion of the land. 17. The first issue for my consideration is as to whether judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) has application to the case in hand. If the said judgment is applicable then nothing more is required but grant relief. 18. The judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) was given after considering unamended provisions of the Act of 1959. Section 173A of the Act of 1959 was amended in the year 1999, however, it was not applied in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) for the reason that demand for conversion of land was raised on 23.5.1997 i.e. prior to the amendment. The case was accordingly considered as per the unamended provisions. The judgment specifically mentions that amended provisions of 1999 would not apply to the case as is coming out from para 19 and 20 of the judgment aforesaid and are quoted hereunder - "19. We, therefore, have to accept the conclusion of the Division Bench that the property had neither been allotted by the Municipal Corporation or by the State Government or that any restriction had been placed on its user. Consequently, the question of demanding conversion charges for change of user would also not arise and the amended provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 173-A would also have no application to the case, since it is controlled by the very opening words that no person shall 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 Government. If the basis on which subsection (4) of Section 173-A could be applied is not available to the petitioner the demand raised by it towards conversion charges is also not maintainable. If the basis on which subsection (4) of Section 173-A could be applied is not available to the petitioner the demand raised by it towards conversion charges is also not maintainable. 20. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Section 173-A as amended in 1999 would not apply to the case of the respondent and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur had correctly allowed the appeal by the respondent." 19. It is also a fact that subsequent to the judgment aforesaid when similar writ petition was allowed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur followed by dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva. The Apex Court refused to apply the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra). The matter was, however, remanded back to the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur for afresh consideration. It is a fact that subsequently the writ petition in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva was decided by the Principal Seat, Jodhpur on 5.5.2016. In the light of the judgment in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva by the Apex Court, the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) would not apply because Pareshar Soni's case was decided as per unamended provision of section 173A of the Act of 1959. The amendment in the provision was made in the year 1999 and now the Act of 2009 exist. In view of above, prayer of the petitioner to allow the writ petition in reference to the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) cannot be accepted when it was not accepted by the Apex Court subsequently in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva (supra). 20. The further issue is as to whether case of the petitioner can be considered under the Act of 1959 or it is to be under the Act of 2009. To decide the aforesaid issue, reference of the facts needs to be given again. 21. It is not in dispute that building plans were submitted for approval on 5.11.2007. No decision on the aforesaid was taken till the Act of 2009 came into effect. It is not a case where the Corporation refused to approve the building plans or raised demand of conversion charges prior to year 2009. The order in this case was passed on 22.3.2012. No decision on the aforesaid was taken till the Act of 2009 came into effect. It is not a case where the Corporation refused to approve the building plans or raised demand of conversion charges prior to year 2009. The order in this case was passed on 22.3.2012. In view of the above, the provisions of the Act of 1959 cannot be applied after its repeal. Section 344 of the Act of 2009 save an order or decision etc. It does not exist in this case. For ready reference, section 344 of the Act of 2009 is quoted hereunder - "Section 344 - Repeal and Savings (1) On and from the commencement of this Act, the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959) shall stand repealed. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (Act No. 8 of 1955),- (a) such repeal shall not affect the validity or invalidity of anything already done or suffered or any action already taken under the repealed enactment or the rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder; and (b) all Municipal Corporations, Councils, Boards or other municipal authorities established under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959, (Act No. 38 of 1959) shall, notwithstanding such repeal, be deemed to have been established under this Act and all Municipalities constituted, members nominated, appointed or elected, committees formed, limits defined, appointments, rules, orders and bye-laws made, notifications and notices issued, taxes imposed, contracts entered into and suits and other proceedings instituted under the repealed enactment shall so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively constituted, nominated, appointed or elected, formed, defined, made, issued, imposed, entered into and instituted under this Act." 22. No order was passed before coming into effect the Act of 2009. In view of above, case of the petitioner can be considered only under the Act of 2009. It is otherwise settled law that after repeal of the Act, consideration cannot be made under it otherwise it would be nothing but riding on the dead horse. Once the Act is repealed, it cannot be revived for any purpose other than for what it has been saved under the repeal and saving clause. 23. It is otherwise settled law that after repeal of the Act, consideration cannot be made under it otherwise it would be nothing but riding on the dead horse. Once the Act is repealed, it cannot be revived for any purpose other than for what it has been saved under the repeal and saving clause. 23. In the light of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation to hold that case of the petitioner cannot be considered under the Act of 1959 which does not exist now after repeal by the Act of 2009. I am thus unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to apply the Act of 1959 and not the Act of 2009. 24. The further issue is as to whether direction under the impugned letter dated 22.3.2012 has rightly been issued asking the petitioner to seek conversion of land under section 182 of the Act of 2009. Before dealing with the issue, it would be necessary to make reference of section 173A of the Act of 1959, as was then existing. It is to have clarity of the law existing from time to time. "Section 173-A of the Act prior to its amendment was as follows: 173-A (Power of the State Government to allow change in the use of land - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land has been allotted or sold to any person by a municipality or the State Government subject to the condition of restraining its use for a particular purpose, the State Government may, if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, allow the owner or holder of such land to use it for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was originally allotted or sold, on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed. Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes. (2) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or to the fund of the Municipality as may be determined by the State Government. Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes. (2) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or to the fund of the Municipality as may be determined by the State Government. (3) Such charges shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable in the land the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." After amendment in the year 1999, section 173A reads as under - "173-A. Restriction on change of use of land and power of the State Government to allow change of use of land.- (1) No person shall 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 Government, any municipality, any other local authority or any other body or authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force or, otherwise than as specified under a Master Plan, wherever it is in operation. (2) In the case of any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under sub-section (1), no person shall use or permit the use of any such land situated in a municipal area for the purpose other than that for which such land-use was or is permissible, in accordance with the Master Plan, wherever it is in operation, or under any law for the time being in force. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or 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 in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to the following changes in use:- (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: Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes. (4) Any person who has already changed the use of land in violation of the provisions of this Act in force at the time of change of use, shall apply to the State Government or any authority authorised by it under sub-section (3), within six months from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act No. 19 of 1999) for regularisation of said use and upon regularisation of the change of use of land he shall deposit the amount contemplated under sub-section (3). (5) Where the State Government or the authority authorised by it under sub-section (3), is satisfied that a person who ought to have applied for permission or regularisation under this section, has not applied and that such permission can be granted or the use of land can be regularised, it may proceed to determine the conversion charges after due notice and hearing the party/parties and the charges so determined shall become due to the municipality and be recoverable under sub-section (7) (6) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to the fund of the municipality. (7) Charges under this section shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable to pay such charges with respect to the land, the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." 25. Both the provisions are referred in para 14 of the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra). The Apex Court decided the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) in reference to unamended provision. In the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva, it was clarified that the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) would not apply to a case coming subsequent to the amendment. The Apex Court decided the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) in reference to unamended provision. In the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva, it was clarified that the judgment in the case of Pareshar Soni (supra) would not apply to a case coming subsequent to the amendment. The Act of 1959 was then repealed and the provision came in the shape of section 182 under the Act of 2009, and it is also quoted hereunder for ready reference - "Section 182 - Restriction on change of use of land and power of the State Government to allow change of use of land (1) No person shall 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 Government, any Municipality, any other local authority or any other body or authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force or, otherwise than as specified under a Master Plan, wherever it is in operation. (2) In the case of any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under sub-section (1), no person shall use or permit the use of any such land situated in a municipal area for the purpose other than that for which such land was being used on or before the commencement of this Act. (2) In the case of any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under sub-section (1), no person shall use or permit the use of any such land situated in a municipal area for the purpose other than that for which such land was being used on or before the commencement of this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the State Government or any authority authorized 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; or (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. (4) Where the State Government or any authority authorized by it under sub-section (3), is satisfied that a person who ought to have applied for permission or regularization under this section, has not applied and that such permission can be granted or the use of land can be regularized, it may proceed to determine the conversion charges after due notice and hearing the party or parties and the charges as may be prescribed, shall become due to the Municipality and be recoverable under sub-section (6). The Municipality may hold camps for expediting this work and take the assistance of any agency as well: Provided that regularization of land use change shall not be permitted in cases where the original land use was for a public purpose such as education, medical or any charitable purpose and the allotment was made at any concessional rate unless the difference in the original rate of allotment and the prevailing is paid and specific consent of the authority which made the original allotment has been obtained. (5) The conversion charges so realized shall be credited to the fund of the Municipality. (6) Charges under this section shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable to pay such charges with respect to the land, the use of which has been changed, and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." 26. The provisions quoted above reveals changes therein from time to time. As per section 182 of the Act of 2009, no person can use the land other than for which it was originally allotted or sold to any person by the State Government, Municipality or any other local authority or any other body or authority in accordance with law or otherwise than specified under a master plan. Sub-section (2) is quite relevant as it provides that if the land was not allotted or sold and not covered under subsection( 1), no person shall use or permit to use such land other than for which it was being used on or before the commencement of the Act. As per section 173A(2), then existing, permission to use land was as per the master plan which does not exist in subsection (2) of section 182 of the Act of 2009 thus under subsection (3) of section 182, conversion charges are required to be paid, if land use is to be changed. The issue in reference to amended provision of section 173A of the Act of 1959 has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur v. Sanjeev Sachdeva. Paras 11 to 13 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: "11. A bare reading of un-amended Section 173-A(1) of the Act would indicate that the conversion for change of Land Use charges could only be realized if the land was allotted by the Municipality or the State Government and there was a condition for restraining use for a particular purpose only. Therefore, in the absence of land being allotted by the State Government/Municipality and in absence of any specific stipulation regarding use of land, the conversion charges could not be claimed. This was the ratio laid down in Pareshar Soni's case (supra) interpreting the un-amended Section 173-A of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of land being allotted by the State Government/Municipality and in absence of any specific stipulation regarding use of land, the conversion charges could not be claimed. This was the ratio laid down in Pareshar Soni's case (supra) interpreting the un-amended Section 173-A of the Act. The Legislature, with a view to ensure planned and regulated development of the urban area felt it necessary to charge for the change of use in certain circumstances of those lands which were not sold or allotted by municipality or by the State Government, Further it is also felt that such a change of user be permitted only "in public interest". In this connection, we may refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act, 1999, which reads as under: "The existing provisions contained in Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 provide that where any land has been allotted or sold subject to the condition of restraining its use for a particular purpose, to any person by a Municipality or the State Government, the State Government may, if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, allow the owner or holder of the land, to use it for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was originally allotted or sold, on payment of such conversion charge as may be prescribed. With a view to ensure planned and regulated development of the urban areas it is necessary to restrict and bar the change of use in certain circumstances of those lands also which were not sold or allotted by Municipality or the State Government. However, the power of the State Government or any other authority authorized by it, to allow change of use of land, on payment of conversion charges is sought to be retained. With a view to achieve the aforesaid objective, the existing Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 is proposed to be substituted. 12. The Amended Section 173-A not only restricts the change of use of land, as the same has been allotted by the municipality or the State Government, but also put restrictions if the land has been allotted by any other local authority. 12. The Amended Section 173-A not only restricts the change of use of land, as the same has been allotted by the municipality or the State Government, but also put restrictions if the land has been allotted by any other local authority. Section 173-A(2) covers the cases which are not even covered by Section 173-A(1) and brings in its fold even the change of use of land which is not in consonance with the Master Plan. Further Section 173-A(1)(2) and (3) also contemplates a situation wherein the State Government is entitled to levy conversion charges if the change in use from one purpose to other purpose. Amendment was necessitated since the State Legislature thought the provision of Section 173-A (un-amended) stood as an impediment for proper planning of urban areas. In other words, with a view to ensure planned and regulated development of urban areas, it was felt that some restrictions have to be imposed and it was for that purpose that Section 173-A was amended. 13. We may, in this respect, also indicate that, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 297 read with Section 173-A of the 1959 Act, 2000 Rules were promulgated. It is under the above-mentioned Rules that the Respondents filed an application on 16.7.2003 for change of land use from residential to commercial. Following those Rules, the Corporation issued public notice inviting objections. Later, the Land Use Committee met and approved the conversion for which a demand notice of Rs. 5,70,300/- was raised by the Corporation on 2.4.2004. We are of the view that the demand is legal and valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section 173-A, as inserted by Amendment Act 19 of 1999 read with 2000 Rules. We are also of the view that the Rajasthan High Court has committed an error in applying the judgment of this Court in Pareshar Soni's case (supra) which was dealing with the unamended provision of Section 173-A." 27. The documents on record do not show that land was allotted for commercial purpose. The petitioner has made a reference of use of land for commercial purpose before commencement of the Act of 2009 but opening para of subsection (2) of section 182 needs allotment or sale of the property for the purpose now to be used otherwise conversion of the land is required. The petitioner has made a reference of use of land for commercial purpose before commencement of the Act of 2009 but opening para of subsection (2) of section 182 needs allotment or sale of the property for the purpose now to be used otherwise conversion of the land is required. The use of the property before commencement of the Act of 2009 has also been given under sub-section (2) of section 182 but provision has to be read in totality. The land use before commencement of the Act of 2009 is to be co-related to use of land as per the allotment or sale of the property, otherwise there would be no purpose to provide use of land for the purpose for which it is allotted or sold. If use of the land prior to commencement of the Act alone is taken into consideration then the first part of section 182(2) would become redundant. 28. If the legislative intent was to permit land use as was prior to commencement of the Act of 2009 then provision aforesaid would not have been enacted in the manner it exist. The amendment made in the year 1999 has otherwise been considered by the Apex Court along with the Rules of 2000. In view of above, proper reading of section 182 of the Act of 2009 and Rules would show that for the use of the land other than for the purpose for which it was allotted or sold, compliance of sub-section (3) of section 182 is required. In the light of the aforesaid, respondents had rightly issued the letter dated 22.3.2012. I do not find any illegality therein in the light of the discussion made above. 29. Learned counsel for petitioner has made reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Sanjeev Sachdeva, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13557/2013, decided on 5.5.2016 by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. Therein, similar issue was considered by this court. In the said case, demand notice was given prior to the Act of 2009. It was after remand of the case by the Apex Court. It was considered under the Act of 1959 but Rules of 2000 were not referred before the court which was considered by the Apex Court in that case itself. There exist further change in the provision to permit land use. It was after remand of the case by the Apex Court. It was considered under the Act of 1959 but Rules of 2000 were not referred before the court which was considered by the Apex Court in that case itself. There exist further change in the provision to permit land use. In the said judgment, court held that the argument of learned counsel for Municipal Council, Jodhpur requiring conversion of land in reference to section 182 of the Act of 2009 cannot be accepted otherwise the position would have been different. The relevant para of the said judgment is also quoted hereunder - "The applicability of Section 173-A (2) can also be examined with reference to Section 182 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which Act has replaced the Act of 1959, wherein, subsection (2) only has been replaced, which now reads as under:- "182. Restriction on change of use of land and power of the State Government to allow change of use of land.- (1)....... (2) In case of any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under sub section (1), no person shall use or permit the use of any such land situated in a municipal area for the purpose other than that for which such land was being used on or before the commencement of this Act." A bare look at the above provision would reveal that same is poles apart from what was stipulated under Section 173-A (2) of the Act and the very fact that the provision contained in the old Act has been drastically amended, which appears to be in tune with the submissions sought to be made by the learned counsel for the respondents, necessarily means that the provisions of Section 173-A (2) of the Act do not envisage a situation as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the respondents. 30. The observation aforesaid was made in reference to the argument in reference to the provisions of the Act of 2009. 31. Taking into consideration the discussion made above, I find no merit in this writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.