1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2414/2006 Madhusudan Vs. The Municipal Board, Abu Road & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 8.5.2007 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr.Sangeet Lodha, for the petitioner/s Mr.Yashwant Mehta, for the respondent/s Mr.L.R. Upadhyaya, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition is directed against the demand of conversion charges raised by the respondent Municipal Board, Abu Road for change in the user of land purporting to be in accordance with Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') as amended vide Municipalities Amendment Act, 1999 w.e.f. 30.9.1999. Apart from challenging the demand on merit, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of provisions of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 as introduced w.e.f. 30.9.1999. However, the validity of provision is not required to be gone into as on the facts the petitioner is otherwise entitled to relief. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the 2 land in question is held under original grant from erstwhile Sirohi State under which there was no restrictiion on the nature of use to which the land in quesiton will be put. When the petitioner had submitted an application for seeking permission for raising construction over the aforesaid property which was of commercial nature, the Municipal Board demanded the conversion charges for permitting the petitioner to use land for commercial purpose by treating the land held by him under the grant for residential purpose only. It is now common ground between the parties that in view of the Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2415/2006 (Ashok Kumar Bakliwal and Ors. V/s The Municipal Board, Abu Road and Ors.) decided on 4.10.2006 which was related to the demand of conversion charges in respect of land held under the like Patta of erstwhile Sirohi State, this petition deserves to be allowed. This Court after considering the amended provision of Section 173-A as aforesaid held that on admitted facts the petitioner's case neither falls under sub-sections (1) or (2). Hence, no restriction otherwise operates against nature of construction to be raised by the holder of land under patta. Hence, he did not require any persmission for change of user from permissible to non-permissible use. In coming to the 3 conclusion, the Court also took the notice of the fact that no master plan exist for the township of Abu Road. The Court also held that no demand can be raised with reference to sub-section (3) of Section 173-A divorced from sub-section (1) and (2). It does not exist independent of sub-sections (1) and (2). In view thereof this petition succeed. The respondents are restrained from invoking sub-section (3) on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case. The security, if any, given in pursuance of the interim order passed on 10.5.2006 shall stand discharged. The demand on account of conversion charges under challenge is quashed. No order as to costs. (BHANWAROO KHAN),J. (RAJESH BALIA),J. /rm