Dismissed

Bhanu Prasad Bhoot and Anr. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2022CW/456/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection of building plan sanctions due to lack of land use conversion. The court held that under the amended Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, even freehold properties require payment of conversion charges if used for commercial purposes, distinguishing the earlier Pareshar Soni judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference with impugned notice; petitioner directed to pay conversion charges to obtain permission.

Bhanu Prasad Bhoot and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 11)

¶2

[CW-2109/2009]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2109/2009
Suresh Kumar Mutha
----Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur And Anr
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4341/2005
Smt. Rani
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9253/2008
Sudhir Bhandari
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9710/2008
Dilp Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Jodhpur
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9715/2008
Smt. Meena Vasvani
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 471/2009
Mohan Lal

(2 of 11)

[CW-2109/2009]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. And Ors

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1228/2009

¶12

Jan Kalyan Properties Pvt.ltd. And Anr

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

¶16

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1434/2009 Jai Kumar Hemnani And Anr. ----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1742/2009

¶17

Jai Kumar Hemnani And Anr.

Stat E And Ors

Jitendra Singh

----Petitioner

Versus State Of Raj. And Anr. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2398/2009 Mohammed Umar

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Raj. And Anr

¶25

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3088/2009

Surendra Mathur

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. And Anr

----Respondent

(3 of 11)

[CW-2109/2009]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8885/2009

¶34

Mohammed Khan And Ors

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State Of Raj. And Anr

¶38

----Respondent

¶39

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2011

¶40

Rajendra Purohit

¶41

State Of Raj. And Anr

¶42

----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 456/2013

¶44

Bhanu Prasad Bhoot And Anr.

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus State Of Raj. And Ors ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanker Lal Sinwaria,on VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja,on VC

¶47

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶48

Judgment

¶49

08/02/2022

¶50

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

¶51

For the sake of brevity, the prayer clauses and the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2109/2009, while treating the same as a lead case.

¶52

(4 of 11)

¶53

[CW-2109/2009]

¶54

The prayer clauses read as under:

¶55

“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf on petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and: -

¶56

I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, the impugned notice dated 6.11.2008 (Annex-4) passed by the respondent Municipal Corporation may kindly be quashed and setaside.

¶57

II. Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent Corporation may be directed to sanction the building plan of the petitioner without imposing the condition of change of land use.

¶58

III. Pending the petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioner prejudicial to his interest, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set-aside.”

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a plot of land by way of registered sale deed dated 01.07.1996, and that originally, a patta in respect of the said land was issued in the year 1932 by the Ex–Ruler of Jodhpur (Maharaja of Jodhpur, Shri Umaid Singh). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner applied for the necessary construction permits before the respondent–Municipal Corporation and deposited the requisite fees for the said purposes.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the respondent–Municipal Corporation denied the said permission on the ground that the petitioner had not applied for the change of land use, and a notice dated 6.11.2008 to that effect was issued to the petitioner.

¶61

(5 of 11)

¶62

[CW-2109/2009]

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the permission were denied on improper grounds as the property in question (purchased through a registered sale deed) was in fact a ‘freehold property’, and therefore, the petitioner was not required to apply for the change of land use, and states that the same position has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Pareshar Soni, 2007 DNJ (SC) 1063, and the prescription to that effecdt has also been made in the statutory provision i.e. Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.

¶64

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent– Municipal Corporation submits that the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the property in question is a ‘free hold property’, and therefore, the same does not require any change of land use, does not hold good, for the simple reason that the provision of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 was amended in September 1999.

¶65

Learned counsel for the respondent–Municipal Corporation further submits that the provision of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 (post amendment in September 1999), clearly states that even if the land (alike the one involved herein) is a ‘free hold property’, conversion charges for land use are required to be deposited. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal

¶66

Corporation Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Sachdeva and Others (2013) 12 SCC 562 , relevant portion whereof (Page 5 onwards), reads as under:

¶67

(6 of 11)

¶68

[CW-2109/2009]

¶69

“ We may, at the very outset, point out that this Court in Pareshar Soni's case (supra) was dealing with the unamended Section 173-A of the Act. For a proper consideration of the question raised, it would be profitable to refer to the un-amended Section 173-A as well as the amended Section 173-A of the Act. Section 173-A of the Act, prior to its amendment, reads as follows:

¶70

173-A (Power of the State Government to allow change in the use of land)

¶71

(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.

¶72

(2) The conversion charges so realized 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.

¶73

(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.

¶74

Section 173-A of the Act as amended by the Amending Act No. 19 of 1999 reads as follows:

¶75

Section 173-A - Restriction on change of use of land and power of the State Government to allow change of use of land:

¶76

(1) No person shall use or permit the use of any land situated in any municipal area, for the purpose other than

¶77

(7 of 11)

¶78

[CW-2109/2009]

¶79

that for which such land was originally allotted or sold to any person by the State Government, any municipality, and other local authority or any other body of 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.

¶80

(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.

¶81

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection (1) of 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 in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to the following changes in use:

¶82

(i) From residential to commercial or any other purpose; or

¶83

(ii) From commercial to any other purpose; or

¶84

(iii) From industrial to commercial or any other purpose; or

¶85

(iv) From cinema to commercial or any other purpose; Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purpose.

¶86

(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 authorized 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 regularization of said use and upon

¶87

(8 of 11)

¶88

[CW-2109/2009]

¶89

regularization of the change of use of land he shall deposit the amount contemplated under Sub-section (3).

¶90

(5) Where the State Government or the authority authorized 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 regularized, 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).

¶91

(6) The conversion charges so realized shall be credited to the fund of the municipality.

¶92

(7) Charges under 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.

¶93

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.

¶94

(9 of 11)

¶95

[CW-2109/2009]

¶96

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 .

¶97

Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Kishan Lal Pungaliya Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4197/2002 (decided on 17.12.2002) .

¶98

Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation further submits that per the sub-section (2) of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959, the conversion of the land has to be in conformity with the master plan, and that in case, according to master plan, if in a concerned area the land is not earmarked for commercial purpose, then residential land could not be put to commercial use in that area, and therefore, the permission so sought for construction over the land can only be granted after the land in question is duly converted, after depositing the

¶99

(10 of 11)

¶100

[CW-2109/2009]

¶101

necessary fees, as contemplated under Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 read with the Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of Land Use) Rules, 2000.

¶102

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above. 10. This Court observes that the short controversy at hand is whether the land in question needs to be converted (change of land use), upon deposition of requisite fees, for the purpose of the construction permission, as sought by the petitioner.

¶103

This Court further observes that as per the amended provision of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959, the land in question does in fact needs to be converted, after deposition of the requisite fees, with the concerned authority for obtaining the permission so sought by the petitioner to construct roads on the land in question.

¶104

This Court also observes the judgment rendered in Municipal Corporation Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Sachdeva(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the judgment rendered in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

¶105

Pareshar Soni (supra) is a bad law, and the provision of law as laid down in Section 173-A as amended in September 1999 would apply to ‘free hold’ property, and therefore, the land so classified would also require the necessary conversion, after deposition of the requisite conversion fees, if sought to be used for a commercial purposes.

¶106

This Court further observes that the law on the issue raised

¶107

in the present petitions has already been crystallized in the provision of law i.e. Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 as

¶108

(11 of 11) [CW-2109/2009]

¶109

amended in September 1999, and the same has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Sachdeva (supra) . This Court thus, finds that the impugned notice issued by the respondentMunicipal Corporation suffers from no legal infirmity and was in fact issued in accordance with law, and hence, the same does not require any interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction.

¶110

In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petitions

¶111

are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶112

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶113

59-71 & 32-skant/-

Bhanu Prasad Bhoot and Anr. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Prasad Bhoot and Anr. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preeti Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Darshan Singh Vs State and Ors.

Shekhar Adhikary Vs Rajasthan University of Health Science

Premratan Vs M/S. Ramchandra and Co.

Mohammed Khan and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Anr.

Jan Kalyan Properties Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur