MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JODHPUR Vs. RAJENDRA BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4-3-1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2918/97. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Rajendra Kumar was allowed and the appellants as well as respondent No. 2 were directed not to insist for payment of conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.

(3.) The only question which arises for decision is whether the State Government, can demand any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in respect of a land, which was neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government. The respondent No. 1 (petitioner), owned shops which are constructed on land measuring 3199 sq. ft. in area. He submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and the permission was granted to him by the Commissioner vide letter dated 10-10-1979 (Annexure 1). Thereafter the petitioner moved another application seeking permission to raise construction and permission was granted to him vide order dated 5-1-1988 (Annexure 2). After obtaining the permission vide Annexure 2, the petitioner raised construction on the land belonging to him. After some time, he wanted to make further alterations and, therefore, he moved another application on 29-12-1995 seeking permission to raise construction. On submission of this application, he was required to submit some documents which were submitted by him but permission was not granted. He, therefore, served a notice on the Municipal Corporation through his counsel on 22-7-1996. After the service of notice, the petitioner was informed that a technical report was being called and, after submission of the technical report, the matter would be placed before the building committee for consideration and after the submission of the technical report, the building committee, considered the application of the petitioner and, by resolution No. 15, granted permission. The Commissioner, in view of the decision of the building committee, accorded his approval on 14-2-1997 but added a condition that commercial charges be realised. The letter dated 14-2-1997 demanding commercial charges was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was also served with notice dated 18-6-1997 asking him to deposit the conversion charges within a period of 7 days. The amount of conversion charges demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 11,00,011.90. The land on which the petitioner had constructed shops in which he wanted to make alterations was neither sold nor allotted by the State Government or the Municipality to him or to his ancestors. According to the averment made in the petition, the land on which the shops were constructed forms part of the ancestral property situated in Moti Chowk, Jodhpur. A dispute regarding the title and possession over that land arose and a regular suit No. 11/1962 was filed which was dismissed by the trial Court but by judgment and decree dated 9-3-1993, passed in D. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 30/67, the suit was decreed in accordance with the decree passed by the High Court and the property was delivered to the petitioner's ancestors and blue print had been prepared at the time of delivery of possession. In para No. 3, it is also mentioned that the State had filed an appeal against the decree but that appeal had been dismissed. Thus, the petitioner's case was that the land was his ancestral property which came into possession of his ancestors in accordance with the decree passed by the High Court. It is also stated in the writ petition that Shri Oswal Singh Sabha had instituted a regular civil suit against Shri Sire Chand Bhandari, Manak Chand, Rajendra Bhandari and Raj Kumar Bhandari and that suit was ultimately disposed of by compromise and in accordance with the compromise, the petitioner got two pieces of land measuring 62' x 62' and 53' x 56', total area 3199 sq. ft. It is also stated in the writ petition that when this land came into possession of the petitioner, shops were already standing on them.