1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2798/2008 Nagar Palika Khandela Versus Jhabar Mal & Another Date of Order :: 28th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. D.P. Pujari for the petitioner Mr. B.M. Sharma for the respondent no.1 BY THE COURT: The counsel for the respondent no.1 has filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ex-parte stay order dated 31st March, 2008. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties prayed that writ petition itself may be disposed of finally. 2. The prayer is allowed. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is dismissed. The final arguments in the case were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. 3. Admit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 5. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property alongwith an application for temporary injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the plot in dispute was allotted to him and thereafter he applied for permission for raising the construction which was allowed. The defendant also recognizes the title of the plaintiff. However, the defendant is interfering with the construction of the plaintiff, therefore, defendant be restrained from interfering with any construction which is being raised by plaintiff over the disputed plot. 6. The defendant contested the application by contending that plaintiff's construction is in the nature of commercial construction and without deposit of conversion charges for commercial use of land, he cannot be allowed to raise construction of commercial nature. 7. The learned trial court vide its order dated 7th September, 2007 partly allowed the application and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of disputed property. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and first 3 appellate court allowed the injunction application in-toto and restrained the defendant by way of temporary injunction from interfering with the construction of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant has preferred this writ petition. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties contended that so far as construction work over the disputed plot is concerned, the same is complete. The dispute in between both the parties at present is now about payment of conversation charges of disputed land for commercial purpose. The learned counsel for defendant-petitioner submits that plaintiff be directed to pay the conversion charges for commercial use of the disputed property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.1 contended that he is ready to deposit the conversion charges of the disputed property for commercial purpose. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I think it fit and proper to dispose of this writ petition maintaining the order of first appellate court and by directing the defendant-petitioner to raise a demand in respect of conversion charges for commercial 4 use of the disputed property within a period of one month and thereafter the plaintiff has undertaken to deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the demand notice. It is made clear that in case the plaintiff fails to pay the conversion charges for commercial use of the disputed property as demanded by defendant-petitioner, then the order of first appellate court will be deemed to have been vacated and his injunction application will be deemed to have been dismissed. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs so far as this writ petition is concerned. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK