CW 7051/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.7051/2010 Vipin Kumar Versus Mun. Council, Ajmer & Ors Date of Order ::: 26/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.01/02/2002 (Ann.6) by which appeal filed by petitioner U/S 170 (12) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 was dismissed - against which revision petition filed by him U/s 300 of the Act, 1959 had met with the same fate vide order dt. 16/02/2010 and accordingly, notice dt. 15/11/1999 demanding Rs.3,71,670/- from the petitioner towards charges of conversion at commercial rate was upheld. Main bone of contention urged by Counsel is that after the building plans were duly approved on 27/08/73, the property was being used for commercial purpose by letting out to the Bank of India w.e.f. 18/12/1973 and commercial conversion charges applicable at relevant time as alleged was deposited and merely because some partition was made or constructed, that will not construe to deposit commercial charges about property in dispute. It would be relevant to observe that after the demand notice dt.15/11/1999 was served upon petitioner, on his appeal, the CW 7051/10 //2// Collector examined the material on record and observed that the property was being used for commercial purpose and building plans were never approved prior thereto; as such, conversion charges from residential to commercial for property in dispute which indisputably is being commercially used by petitioner, has to be deposited. It has also been considered by Divisional Commissioner vide order impugned dt.16/02/2010 (Ann.8). However, this fact remains un- controverted from material on record that the ground floor of the premises is being commercially used for which the petitioner was otherwise under obligation to deposit charges at commercial rates for its conversion. Having considered contention of Counsel and examined the material on record, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the authorities, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 7051CW2010May26Ds.doc