1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2701/2000 Kanhaiya Lal Jain versus The Urban Improvement Trust and another PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.M.R.Singhvi, for the petitioner Mr.Kailash Joshi, for the respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27th February, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition appears to be covered by the various decisions of this Court. The challenge by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition is as to levy of conversion charges by the respondent – UIT, Jodhpur amounting to Rs.2,65,200/- deposited by the petitioner vide Annex.4 receipt dated 2/5 30.11.1995 on account of alleged commercial use of Plot No.228, Sardarpura “C” Road, Jodhpur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in the decision rendered on 18.2.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1714/2005 - Mangi Devi V/s State of Rajasthan following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s Parashar Soni reported in 2007(13) Scale 307 and Suresh Kothari V/s State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 (2) CDR 884 has held while dealing with analogous provisions of Section 173A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 that it is only the change of land use which takes place after amendment in law on 30.9.1999 which may attract levy of conversion charges as per amended provisions of Section 173A of the Act and since in that case permission to raise commercial construction was accorded in the year 1971 for plot in question, the conversion charges could not be demanded merely because fresh permission to raise additional construction was sought in the year 2003 after amendment in law. 4. This court again while following the aforesaid decision in the case of Devendra Puri and another V/s The Municipal Board, Chittorgarh and ors. -S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2206/2005 3/5 decided on 20.2.2008 held that in such circumstances levy of conversion charges was bad in law and directed the Municipal Corporation to refund the conversion charges levied by it. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court another decision of this Court in the case of Jawahar Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in 2002 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 194 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with Section 73B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 similarly held that the levy of conversion charges in the case of free hold land, use of which is not restricted by a title under which said land is held, no conversion charges are leviable and in view of the fact that though under non-obstante provision of Sec.73-B, the State Government has necessary authority to permit the use of the land for purposes other than for purposes restricted under the Scheme framed under Section 29 inspite of the provision of Sec.72, but there being no scheme framed under Section 29 or deemed to be framed under Section 41-A, under which the user of the land in question for commercial purposes was restricted, no demand for change in user could be made on that basis also. 4/5 7. Another Division Bench decision which has been placed on record and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and anr. V/s Raj Kumar and another – D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.609/1999 decided on 22.5.2000 to the same effect. 8. Thus, the controversy at hand appears to be squarely covered by the number of decisions of this Court and the controversy is no longer res integra. 9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the petitioner voluntarily paid such conversion charges and therefore, is not entitled to refund thereof is of hardly any avail to the respondents. If the conversion charges could not have been levied as per law applicable in the case of the petitioner, it is the money paid under mistake of law and under Section 72 of the Contract Act, such money cannot be retained by any person much less a State Authority or a public body. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that the conversion charges levied and deposited by the petitioner under Annex.4 receipt amounting to Rs.2,65,200/- could not have been 5/5 levied by the respondent – UIT, Jodhpur and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the same. The respondent – UIT, Jodhpur is accordingly directed to refund said money of Rs.2,65,200/- within a period of two months to the petitioner. The respondent – UIT, Jodhpur is however, not liable to pay interest thereon as the writ petition has been allowed by this Court only today. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.46 Ss/-