With regard to the aforesaid averment made by the opposite party no.3, it is clear tha
t in the meantime the petitioner has removed the encroachment and by the date of application f
or conversion of leasehold land on 5.2.2008, there was no decision by the LAC enhancing the la
nd premium as per Sub rule (1) of Rule 8 of the O.G.L.S. Rules, 1983. It is trite in law that
the petitioner is entitled to pay the conversion fee as prevalent on the date of making applic
ation. Since the application for conversion was made on 5.2.2008 to enhance the land premium m
uch before the decision dated 7.9.2009 taken by the LAC to enhance conversion fee, the demand
of further amount vide Annexure- 2 does not stand to the scrutiny of law. Similarly, as the en
croachment has been removed on enquiry, as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advo
cate, Annexure-1 is also illegal. So, Annexures-1 and 2 are liable to be quashed and the Court
do so. It is further directed that the petitioner would pay the conversion fees as prevalent
on the date of making application for the same, i.e, 5.2.2008, and the opposite party no.2 is
directed to receive the same and pass necessary order for conversion of the leasehold land to
freehold. The entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of rec
eipt of this order.
