JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of decision dated 9.5.2008 of State Level Conversion of Land Use Committee, whereby accepting the proposal of Municipal Board, Phalodi, the land use of the land measuring 47.20 bighas comprising khasra no. 573 of Revenue Village Phalodi categorised as gair mumkin pal in the revenue record, stands converted to residential use. The petitioner has further prayed that the residential scheme proposed to be launched by the Municipal Board, Phalodi on the land in question, namely "Swami Vivekanand Nagar Awasiya Yojana" may be directed to be cancelled. 2. The facts relevant are that the land ad measuring 255.01 bighas comprising khasra no. 573 of Revenue Village-Phalodi is categorised as gair mumkin pal in the revenue record. In the Master Plan, the said land falls within the periphery control belt of the town. The Municipal Board issued a public notice inviting objections against the proposal to convert the land measuring 47.02 bighas out of the land measuring 255.01 bighas for the purpose of developing a residential colony. On the factual report being requisitioned by Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Phalodi, the Tehsildar, Phalodi vide communication dated 7.5.2008 informed that as per the revenue record, the land in question is categorised as gair mumkin pal, which is 1/2 km away from river flow on Phalodi-Dechu road. At the same time, in the said communication it was mentioned that the proposed land is 900 meter inside Phalodi-Dechu road. At the same time, in the said communication it was mentioned that the proposed land is 900 meter inside Phalodi-Dechu road. The State Level Conversion of Land Use Committee after due consideration of the proposal in its meeting held on 9.5.2008, resolved to grant sanction for change of land use subject to following conditions: ^^¼1½ vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] Qyksnh }kjk Qyksnh ls jkensojk&nspw dks tkus okyh lM+d dk ekxkZf/kdkj ekLVj Iyku ÁLrkokuqlkj j[kk tkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA lkFk gh mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds fcUnw la[;k 6] 7 ,oa 8 dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA ¼2½ vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] Qyksnh }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk; fd mDr Ádj.k esa Hkw&miksx ifjorZu lEcfU/kr dksbZ fof/kd@uhfrxr jksd rks ugha gSA ¼3½ vkosfnr Hkwfe ij ÁLrkfor vkoklh; ;kstuk dk ys vkmV Iyku ofj"B uxj fu;kstd] tks/kiqj tksu] tks/kiqj ls vuqeksfnr djkuk gksxkA lkFk gh mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds fcUnw la[;k 6 dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA ¼4½ ;g dsoy ek= vkosfnr Hkwfe ds Hkw&miksx ifjorZu dh Lohd`fr gSA bl Lohd`fr dks vkosfnr Hkwfe ds LokfeRo lEcU/k esa Áek.k ds :i esa ugha ekuk tk;sxkA ¼5½ vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] Qyksnh }kjk Á'uxr Hkwfe ij ÁLrkfor mi;ksx ls mRiUu gksus okys lksfyM ,oa fyfDoM osLV dk fu"iknu jktLFkku jkT; Ánw"k.k fu;U=.k e.My }kjk fu/kkZfjr iSjkehVlZ vuqlkj lUrks"ktud ¼6½ 'kgjh fodkl ls lEcfU/kr fu;eksa tSls lc&fMfotu :Yl] fcfYMax ckbZykt vkfn dh ikyuk vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] Qyksnh }kjk Lo;a ds Lrj ij djuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tkosxkA** 3. After a lapse of about 10 years, the respondent-Municipal Board on 15.3.2018 launched a residential scheme to be developed on the disputed land and invited applications for allotment of the plots. It is averred that the residents of the town Shri Sunil Kumar Chhangani and others represented against the development of the colony as proposed and served the respondents with a notice for demand of justice. Thereafter, they filed a writ petition (PIL) No. 6985/18 before this court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.7.2018. 4. Precisely, the conversion of the land use is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the land which forms part of the catchment area/gair mumkin pal is not permissible to be divested for any other use. It is submitted that the disputed land which falls within the peripheral belt/green belt cannot be permitted to be converted for residential use in deviation of the Master Plan. It is submitted that the disputed land which falls within the peripheral belt/green belt cannot be permitted to be converted for residential use in deviation of the Master Plan. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon Bench decisions of this court in Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1554/04, dated 12.1.2017 and Abdul Rahman vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1536/03, dated 2.8.2004. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Board taking the stand that the change of the land use has been permitted by the State Level Committee, after following the due process of law. It is submitted that the disputed land does not fall in catchment area. It is submitted that the petitioner is intentionally trying to create a confusion as if the entire 255.01 bighas land comprising khasra no. 573 is sought to be used for residential purposes whereas, actually only 47.02 bighas land has been used for the said purpose. It is averred that State Level Committee vide order dated 9.5.2008 directed the Municipal Board to take report from the Department of Irrigation, however, despite communication dated 18.7.2008 sent by the respondent Board to the Department of Irrigation, no response was received. It is submitted that before launching the Scheme, vide yet another communication dated 30.3.2017, the Irrigation Department was requested to give its report, which was responded in terms that the Department of Irrigation is not empowered to give any such report. It is submitted that after service of the notice of the present writ petition, again assistance was sought in the matter from Department of Irrigation vide communication dated 28.12.2018, in response whereof, the respondent Board has again informed that 'no objection certificate' cannot be issued by the Department of Water Resources for the change of land use. It is submitted that the residential scheme is developed 250 meters away from Phalodi-Dechu road, which is already surrounded by abadi. The residential scheme in question does not fall in any catchment area and the same is not surrounded by any water channel or ponds. The lottery for the allotment of plots in the said scheme was conducted on 21.5.2018 and total 167 plots have already been allotted to the applicants, that apart, the respondent Board has also issued construction permission to the allottees. 6. The lottery for the allotment of plots in the said scheme was conducted on 21.5.2018 and total 167 plots have already been allotted to the applicants, that apart, the respondent Board has also issued construction permission to the allottees. 6. A reply to the writ petition has also been filed on behalf of the State taking the stand that there is no gair mumkin pal exists on the land measuring 255.01 bighas of Khasra No. 573 rather, the same is on Khasra No. 574 measuring 9.12 bighas. Strangely enough as per Annexure-R/1, the copy of jamabandi which is record of rights placed on record by the State, the land measuring 255.01 bighas comprising Khasra No. 573 is categorised as gair mumkin pal and the land measuring 9.12 bighas comprising Khasra No. 574 is categorised as gair mumkin rasta. Suffice it to say that the State has taken the stand which is ex facie contrary to the revenue record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the bar contained in Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Act of 1955), the land which is recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin pal cannot be divested to any other use. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, there exists five ponds adjoining to the disputed land, which is abundantly clear from the revenue map placed on record. It is submitted that the State Level Committee was conscious of the fact that as per the revenue record, the land is categorised as gair mumkin pal and for this reason, while granting the sanction, the State Level Committee has specifically observed that the Department of Town Planning has no expertise in respect of high flood area of the river and therefore, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Phalodi, after obtaining the report from Department of Irrigation shall take appropriate protective measures. The Committee also observed that while inviting objection, only 7 days time was granted whereas as per the rules, 15 days time was required to be granted, accordingly, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board was directed to issue fresh notice giving 15 days time but, no such notice was ever issued. The Committee also observed that while inviting objection, only 7 days time was granted whereas as per the rules, 15 days time was required to be granted, accordingly, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board was directed to issue fresh notice giving 15 days time but, no such notice was ever issued. It is pertinent to note that while granting the sanction, a specific condition is imposed that the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Phalodi, shall ensure that there is no legal or policy bar operative against the proposed conversion of the land and thus, apparently, the said conditional conversion in no manner could be construed to be the final sanction issued by the State Level Committee for proposed change of land use. Learned counsel submitted that in of Gulab Kothari's case (supra), this Court has issued categorical directions that the State Authorities shall take effective steps for conservation and preservation of natural resources i.e. hills, forests, rivers, other water bodies and catchment area and shall undertake a drive to remove all encroachments made over natural resources and unauthorised activities operating thereon and shall restore such natural resources by taking appropriate action including the cancellation of allotment made in defiance of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. Drawing the attention of this Court to a Bench decision in the matter of Kanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2019 (1) CJ (Civ.) (Raj.) 152, learned counsel submitted that under the law if the tank, nadi and talab are required to be protected then, its boundary and catchment area are also required to be protected and thus, even the land forming part of gair mumkin pal cannot be divested to any other use. Learned counsel submitted that since the land forming part of gair mumkin pal is not available for allotment, the allotments if any made by the Municipal Board are non est. Learned counsel submitted that vide interim order dated 27.9.2018, it was specifically ordered by this Court that land measuring 255.01 bighas comprising Kharsa No. 573 of revenue village Phalodi shall not be diverted for residential or any other purpose and the status-quo shall be maintained and thus, the question of any construction being raised on the disputed land does not arise. 8. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board contended that the present PIL filed by the petitioner is abuse of the process of the Court. It is submitted that the residential scheme in question has been developed upon the land comprising Khasra No. 573, which has already been entered in the revenue record in the name of respondent Board. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question having been converted for residential purposes by the State Level Committee after following the due process of law, the respondent Board was absolutely justified in launching the residential scheme thereon. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, yet another PIL was filed questioning the legality of the residential scheme wherein, the petitioner also participated but the same was later withdrawn and thus, the fresh petition filed should not be entertained by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the residential colony is developed 250 meters away from Phalodi-Dechu road, which is already surrounded by Abadi including Milkmen Colony and Sabji Mandi and thus, the land which is not actually used as Talab Ki Pal has rightly been converted by the State Level Committee for residential scheme as proposed by the Municipal Board. Learned counsel submitted that out of 255.01 bighas land comprising Khasra No. 573, only 47.02 bighas land is sought to be used for residential scheme which is not going to adversely affect the water bodies in any manner whatsoever. It is submitted that the residential scheme has not been launched over any drift filler or catchment area as claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel urged that pursuant to the lottery conducted, the plots already stand allotted to the applicants and thus, at this stage, the order impugned converting the land should not be interfered with. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the part of the land comprising Khasra No. 573 has already been put to different uses inasmuch as admittedly, Milkmen Colony and Krishi Sabji Mandi are already existing there. Learned AAG submits that the land, which is being converted for residential colony does not come within the perimeter of high flood area of river or the ponds and thus, taking into consideration the actual position existing at the site, the conversion of the land use cannot be faulted with. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, the land in question forms part of 255.01 bighas land comprising Khasra No. 573, which is categorised in the revenue record as gair mumkin pal. It is pertinent to note that even at the initial stage, when the proposal for change of the land use was mooted, the Senior Town Planner while recommending to place the proposal before the State Level Committee for policy decision, observed that the report should be obtained from Department of Irrigation regarding the land not falling within the river flow area. It is pertinent to note that as per the Tehsildar's report, the river flow is shown to be on 1/2 km away from Phalodi-Dechu road, which flows from the exit way created within the pal. A perusal of the minutes of the State Level Committee makes it abundantly clear that during the consideration of the proposal for change of land use, the complete factual position regarding the land being categorised as gair mumkin pal, the flow of the river from the exit way created within the pal, the land falling within periphery control belt of the town Phalodi in the Master Plan and requirement of the report of Department of Irrigation regarding high flood area of the river, was there before the State Level Committee. Thus, obviously, before taking a decision to change the land use, the State Level Committee was under an obligation to ascertain as to whether the land in question can at all be put to residential use. Strangely enough, instead of obtaining the clearance in respect of all the relevant aspects emerging from record, the State Level Committee proceeded to pass conditional order, shifting the obligation to obtain the clearances regarding the possible impediments in converting the land for residential use, upon the Municipal Board. As a matter of fact, the State Level Committee, which was conscious about the fact that the land forming part of gair mumkin pal cannot be converted for residential use, has proceeded to pass an order, which in no manner could be construed to be an order permitting the change of land use in absolute terms. As a matter of fact, the State Level Committee, which was conscious about the fact that the land forming part of gair mumkin pal cannot be converted for residential use, has proceeded to pass an order, which in no manner could be construed to be an order permitting the change of land use in absolute terms. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the high flood area of the river which was required to be ascertained before putting the land in question to residential use has never been certified to be so by the Department of Irrigation or any other expert body. 12. It is also matter of record that as per the Master Plan of the town Phalodi, the disputed land falls within the periphery control belt and the use of the land therein for the purposes other than those specified generally cannot be permitted. As laid down by this court in Gulab Kothari's case (supra), if the change of land use in peripheral control belt is considered to be inevitable, the subsequent alteration or modification of the Master Plan must subserve the legislative intent of planned development for promotion and enhancement of quality of life of the citizen and therefore, any isolated change in the land use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt without inclusion thereof in the land use plan of urbanised/urbanisable area shown in the Master Plan is not permissible. Apparently, the relevant aspects for proposed change of the land use within the peripheral belt have not even been taken note of by the State Level Committee. In the considered opinion of this court, the State Level Committee in adopting the impugned resolution for permitting change of land use, while ignoring the factual position on record regarding the land being not available for change of the land use, has ex facie acted without jurisdiction. 13. It is pertinent to note that as per the revenue record, the land in question being part of gair mumkin pal was never a disputed fact during the entire proceedings taken for change of the land use. Even, while proceeding to consider the proposal for change of land use, the State Level Committee has noticed this aspect of the matter. In this regard, the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee placed on record as Annexure-16, are self explanatory. 14. Even, while proceeding to consider the proposal for change of land use, the State Level Committee has noticed this aspect of the matter. In this regard, the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee placed on record as Annexure-16, are self explanatory. 14. Section 16 of the Act of 1955, specifies the land in respect whereof no khatedari rights shall accrue which inter alia include the land use for casual and occasional cultivation in the bed of river or tank, land covered by water and use for the purpose of growing singhara or other like product, land acquired or held for public purpose or a work of public utility and the land which has been set apart or is in the opinion of the Collector necessary for the flow of water into any reservoir or tank of drinking of a village or for surrounding villages. 15. In Kanti Lal's case (supra), a Bench of this court while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955, categorically held that the land falling within the perimeter of tank or pond of the village, its boundary or the catchment area being the land of public utility is not available for allotment for the purpose of extension of abadi or any other use. The court observed that under the law if the tank, nadi or talab is required to be protected, then obviously, its boundary and catchment area are also required to be protected. In this view of the matter, we are firmly of the view that the land forming part of talab ki pal cannot be divested to residential or any other use. 16. In Abdul Rahman vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435, a Bench of this court while accepting the suggestions made by a committee constituted recommended for restoration of drainage channels like nala, rivers, tributaries etc. as on 15.8.1947, has already issued directions to the State Government to chalk out a plan to take effective steps for restoring the catchment area. In Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 11153/11, decided on 29.5.2012, specific directions have been issued restraining the allotment of the land falling in catchment area of water bodies like johar, nala, tank, river, pond etc. In Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 11153/11, decided on 29.5.2012, specific directions have been issued restraining the allotment of the land falling in catchment area of water bodies like johar, nala, tank, river, pond etc. and it is further directed that appropriate action shall be taken for cancellation of the allotment made in defiance of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. 17. That apart, in Gulab Kothari's case (supra), this court has issued categorical directions to the State Authorities to take effective steps for conservation and preservation of natural resources i.e. hills, forests, rivers, other water bodies and catchment area, to undertake a drive to remove all encroachments made over natural resources noticed hereinabove and the unauthorised activities operating thereon and to restore such natural resources by taking appropriate actions including cancellation of allotment made in defiance of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. 18. Thus, in view of the position of law settled as above and the directions already issued by this court time and again, the action of the State Level Committee in changing the land use of the land forming part of talab ki pal and the action of the respondent Board in launching residential colony thereon, cannot be countenanced by this court. 19. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The decision dated 9.5.2008 of the State Level Committee in permitting the change of the land use of the land measuring 47.20 bighas comprising khasra no. 573 of Revenue Village Phalodi categorised as gair mumkin pal for residential purposes, is quashed. The Scheme launched by the Municipal Board, Phalodi for developing the colony on the land forming part of talab ki pal namely, Swami Vivekanand Nagar Awasiya Yojana, is also quashed. No order as to costs.