JAMUNA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dtd. 17/10/2017, 16/5/2024 and 7/11/2024 allowing the application of M/s Pearl Spytech Realtors LLP and Arvind Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Nos.19 and 20'), for conversion of the land use and dismissing the appeal & revision filed by the petitioner respectively.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner is a society registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner for developing a residential scheme, entered into the agreements to sell dtd. 19/8/1998 with Pushpa Devi W/o Arjun Singh and Ghasi S/o Jagannath for purchasing their shares in the property mentioned in the agreements to sell. The supplementary agreements to sell dtd. 15/9/2003 and 24/1/2004 were executed by Ghasi and legal representatives of Pushpa Devi. Petitioner on 12/1/2003 under Sec. 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereafter 'the Act of 1956') applied to Jaipur Development Authority for conversion of the land. On 5/4/2004 Ghasi and legal representatives of Pushpa Devi executed power of attorney in favour of Sohan Lal Bairwa. Through power of attorney holder the land in question was sold to Roop Narain Raigar s/o Mahadev Raigar by a registered sale deed dtd. 26/6/2008. The respondent Nos.19 and 20 applied under Sec. 90-A of the Act of 1956 for conversion of land. After inviting objections by publishing a notice in two daily newspapers, order for land conversion dtd. 17/10/2017 was passed. It would be appropriate to note that the petitioner chose not to raise objection in pursuance to the notice. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conversion was dismissed on 16/5/2024. The petitioner failed in revision and hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner for conversion of land for non agricultural purposes is still pending. The contention is petitioner being in possession of land was entitled for allotment of the land and order of conversion of land should have been passed. Sub-Sec. (7) and (8) of Sec. 90-A of the Act of 1956 are relied upon to argue that on the basis of agreement to sell the conversion of land is permissible. The argument is that the appellate and revisional authorities erred in holding that the khatedari rights cannot be transferred by an unregistered agreement to sell.