CW 13191/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.13191/2009 Rajeev Goyal Versus Secy. UDH Govt. of Raj. & Anr Date of Order ::: 23/04/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RP Garg, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking refund of excess amount allegedly charged by Jaipur Development Authority (“JDA”) while granting permission for conversion of land from agricultural to commercial pursuant to Government Circular dt.26/11/2007 (Ann.5). As alleged in the petition, while claiming himself as Khatedar tenant of land bearing khasra No.125/1 of village Kanota (Tehsil Bassi-Jaipur) measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa (consisting of 4932 sq.mtr., for which he had applied for grant of license to Bharat Petroleum Company for retail outlet on 17/06/2005, at the same time, petitioner moved an application before the JDA (respondent-2) seeking conversion of agricultural land (supra) for commercial use for installation of a petrol pump; pursuant to his application, notification U/s 25(3) of JDA Act, 1982 was published on 07/06/2007 and since no objection appears to have been received – taking note whereof, the authority granted permission for conversion of his agricultural land for commercial purpose and in terms of Government Circular in vogue, a demand notice was served – pursuant to which, petitioner deposited conversion charges, allegedly under protest. However, after grant of permission and requisite formalities being complied with, CW 13191/09 //2// petitioner raised objection by submitting representation and also approached this Court on the premise that the authority was not justified in taking conversion charges @ Rs. 400/- per sq.yard and he being khatedar tenant of the land for which he applied for conversion, it could have been charged @ Rs. 10/- per sq. yard; as such, is entitled for the refund of excess amount having been charged by the JDA. In the opinion of this Court, instant writ petition appears to have been a suit for recovery in regard to alleged excess conversion charges which is claimed as refund from the JDA which certainly are disputed questions of fact. Taking note of material, which the petitioner has placed on record, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be free to avail of remedy under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 13191CW09Apr23Lbty.doc