ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following relief:- i. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the demand order Ann.P/1. ii. Respondents be directed to accept the amount mentioned in the order sheet dated 26.2.2013 and declare the plot No.JR.HIG-10, Near Motel Shiraz, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal as free hold. iii. Cost of this petition may be awarded. iv. Any other relief deemed fit under the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. 2. Before deciding the issue involved in the case, it is appropriate to narrate the previous history of the case which is thus; (2.1) The present writ petition was earlier heard by this Court and vide order dated 11.2.2021, the petition got dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition had been filed by the petitioner and that review petition was registered as R.P. No.757 of 2021 and vide order dated 4.5.2022, the order passed by writ Court on 11.2.2021 reversed and the petition was allowed. Thereafter, the State preferred an appeal which was registered as W.A. No.1160 of 2022 and vide order dated 29.9.2022, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter directing the writ Court to decide the matter afresh on merit and order passed in review petition dated 4.5.2022 was modified to the extent that the direction issued to the Tehsildar by the writ Court is set aside and the order dated 11.2.2021 was affirmed and W.P. No.2728 of 2016 is restored for hearing on merit. As such, this writ petition is listed before this Court for fresh hearing in pursuance to the order of Division Bench. (2.2) The original petitioner made an application for allotment of the house before the Housing Board i.e. respondent No.5, who in turn, allotted the house to the petitioner and a lease-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1977. The said lease-deed was renewed in the year 2008 for a further period of 30 years. (2.3) However, the Collector Bhopal has reassessed the conversion charge as per the market value of the land prevailing in the year 2015 because the State Government leased out the land to respondent No.5 only in the year 2015. The said lease-deed was renewed in the year 2008 for a further period of 30 years. (2.3) However, the Collector Bhopal has reassessed the conversion charge as per the market value of the land prevailing in the year 2015 because the State Government leased out the land to respondent No.5 only in the year 2015. Respondent No.5 although allotted the land to the original petitioner in the year 1977 and conversion charge was taken from him as per the prevailing market value at the relevant point of time. The Collector Bhopal has raised a demand of Rs.9,26,202/- on the ground that when the land itself has given to respondent No.5 in the year 2015 then allotment made by respondent No.5 of the land prior to 2015 was not proper and in fact illegal because at that time respondent No.5 had no right to lease out the land as the land itself was allotted to respondent No.5 by the State in the year 2015 and therefore, whatever assessment made by the Collector at that point of time was not proper and as such, it was reassessed considering the market value of the land in the year 2015. As such, the Collector raised demand of Rs.9,26,202/- saying that the assessment made on earlier occasion was not proper and therefore, the petitioner is required to pay the conversion charge as per market value of the land prevailing in the year 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has challenged the said action of the Collector Bhopal relying upon the provisions of Rules i.e. M.P. Grant of Freehold Right in respect of the Land on Lease Situated in Urban Area rules, 2010 (for short ‘Rules of 2010’), especially rule 2, which reads as under:- “2. Application,- These rules shall be applicable immediately to lands, where the land use is purely residential or commercial, and that have been allotted on lease to any person by the State Government or an officer authorised by it and also includes such lands which have been given by the State Government to the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, established under the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam,1972 or a Development Authority, established under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,1973 or a Housing Co-operative Society, established or registered under any law for the time being in force and leased thereon to any person: Provided that where the land use is mixed these rules shall be applicable only after such areas are specifically notified by the State Government in the official Gazzette.” He further submits that the aforesaid Rule very categorically provides that there was no occasion for the State Government to execute the lease-deed in favour of the Housing Board inasmuch as the land was given to the Housing Board and other authority by the State Government, but lease is required to be executed when the land is given to an individual. He further submits that the land was given to the Housing Board in the year 1977 and after submitting an application for allotment of the land to the petitioner, a lease-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.4 somewhere in the year 1977 and the said lease-deed was renewed in the year 2008 for a further period of 30 years. He further submits that merely because lease-deed has been executed by the State Government, it does not confer any right on respondent No.2 to reassess the conversion charge as per the market value of the land prevailing in the year 2015. He further submits that the assessment has already been made by Tehsildar on the basis of the Collector’s guidelines of the year 2012-13 and Rs.2,30,207/- were determined as the conversion charge for getting the lease land converted into freehold land. He also submits that later on the calculation made by the Additional Collector and determined that instead of Rs.2,30,207/- the conversion charge would be Rs.9,26,202/- is improper inasmuch as the petitioner applied for conversion of land in the year 2012 and Tehsildar made the assessment and forwarded the same to the Additional Collector, but he did not finalize and was sitting over the same. Later on, he reassessed the conversion charge and enhanced the same exorbitantly. According to the petitioner, it is the Additional Collector, who has delayed the matter and for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the stand taken by the State in its reply and submitted that though the petitioner has applied for conversion of land allotted to him by respondent No.5 and Tehsildar has made assessment thereof determining the conversion charge but that process was incomplete and was completed by the competent authority i.e. the Additional Collector on the basis that the State Government formally executed a lease in favour of respondent No.5 on 3.5.2015 and on the said date, the market value of the land got escalated and as per the provisions of Rules of 2010, the conversion charge was required to be assessed as per prevailing market value of the land and accordingly the conversion charges have been properly quantified to the tune of Rs.9,26,202/-. The State has also filed copy of the order-sheet dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure-R/1) showing assessment made by Tehsildar again. According to the counsel for the State, the petitioner has deliberately filed incomplete order-sheet of the proceedings of assessing the conversion charge and without considering the order-sheet dated 21.10.2015, the assessment made by Tehsildar on earlier occasion cannot be considered to be conclusive. Therefore, the submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner is not sustainable for the reason that he relied upon the incomplete proceeding of assessment of conversion charge. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is clear that it is a case in which the original petitioner was allotted a house on his application made to respondent No.5 in the year 1977 under the Hire Purchase Scheme. The lease was further renewed in the year 2008 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 for a period of 30 years. 6. After introducing the Rules of 2010, the original petitioner made an application claiming that the house/plot be also converted into freehold land from leasehold land. As per Rule 6 of Rules of 2010, the Authorized Officer may convert the leasehold right into freehold right after processing the application made under rule 8 on payment of conversion charge. 6. After introducing the Rules of 2010, the original petitioner made an application claiming that the house/plot be also converted into freehold land from leasehold land. As per Rule 6 of Rules of 2010, the Authorized Officer may convert the leasehold right into freehold right after processing the application made under rule 8 on payment of conversion charge. On the said application, the proceeding was initiated by the Tehsildar and after inviting objection, the conversion charges were assessed that comes to Rs.2,30,207/- that too on the basis of Collector Guidelines of the year 2012-13 because Rules of 2010 for conversion of leasehold right into freehold right were introduced in the year 2010 only and application for conversion was moved by the petitioner only after enforcement of the rules of 2010. 7. As per the counsel for the petitioners, there was no reason for ignoring the said assessment and making fresh assessment demanding an amount of Rs.9,26,202/- on the basis of market value of the land as per guidelines prevailing in the year 2015-2016. I find substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that when the house/plot had already been leased out by the Housing Board and lease was further extended in the year 2008 for a further period of 30 years. On an application submitted by the original petitioner for conversion of house/plot from leasehold land to freehold land, the case was registered, objections were invited and the Tehsildar assessed the conversion charge on the basis of guidelines of the year 2012-2013 which was prevailing at the time of assessment made and processing the application of conversion. Merely because there is a delay on the part of the authority for making formal allotment, conversion charge cannot be changed in view of the lapses made on the part of the State if unnecessarily consumed time to make a formal order of allotment. As per settled principle of law, for the lapses on the part of the respondent/authority, party cannot put suffer owing to administrative lapse on the part of the government or public authority when there is no fault on its part. 8. As per settled principle of law, for the lapses on the part of the respondent/authority, party cannot put suffer owing to administrative lapse on the part of the government or public authority when there is no fault on its part. 8. Apparently, there was a delay on the part of State but when the land had already been given to respondent No.5 on lease and an application for allotment has been considered in the year 1977 and in 2008 the year lease had been renewed for a period of 30 years then assessment has rightly been made by the authority i.e. the Tehsildar because no provision is available under the Rules specifying as to which authority can make assessment of conversion charge. The Tehsildar, being a revenue authority registered a case of conversion of leasehold land to freehold land and if any assessment is made by him, the same cannot be considered to be illegal in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case of P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 1 SCC 245 , in which the Supreme Court has clearly held that the parties cannot be made to suffer owing to the administrative lapse on the part of the State and no fault can be found with on the part of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the said case in paragraph-7 has observed as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the posts were to be filled up by promotion. We fail to understand how the appellant, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, could question the retrospective promotion granted to the private respondents herein. It is not disputed that in view of the administrative lapse, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not hold a sitting from 1964 to 1980. The respondents cannot suffer owing to such administrative lapse on the part of the State of Kerala for no fault on their part. It is also not disputed, that in ordinary course they were entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, in the event, a Departmental Promotion Committee had been constituted in due time. The respondents cannot suffer owing to such administrative lapse on the part of the State of Kerala for no fault on their part. It is also not disputed, that in ordinary course they were entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, in the event, a Departmental Promotion Committee had been constituted in due time. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the State of Kerala took a conscious decision to the effect that those who have been acting in a higher post for a long time although on a temporary basis, but were qualified at the time when they were so promoted and found to be eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee at a later date, should be promoted with retrospective effect.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Consequently, the order passed by the authority raising demand of Rs.9,26,202/- vide order dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure-P/1) which is impugned in this petition is hereby set aside. Since the petitioner was willing to deposit the amount of conversion charge assessed by the Tehsildar which came to Rs.2,30,207/- be paid to the Tehsildar by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, if already not paid and thereafter, the respondent/authority shall proceed to convert the leasehold land into freehold land in favour of the petitioner. 10. The petition ex consequentia is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.