CW Nos.2206/05 & 2026/05-Devendra Puri Vs. Municipal Board : Order dt.20.2.2008 1/4 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2206/2005 Devendra Puri & Anr.Vs. The Municipal Board,Chittorgarh & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2026/2001 Devendra Puri & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 20th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.R. Singhvi for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. In these two connected matters, two fold submissions by the petitioners are as under:- (i) that the conversion charges of Rs.1,42,829/- was illegally demanded by the respondent Municipal Board, Chittorgarh and (ii) that under the permission granted by the Municipal Board for raising the construction in question as well as under the interim orders of this Court, the construction has been completed and according to the petitioner, there was no deviation from the approved map. CW Nos.2206/05 & 2026/05-Devendra Puri Vs. Municipal Board : Order dt.20.2.2008 2/4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the illegal levy of conversion charges under Section 173A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 is concerned, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Pareshar Soni 2007 (13) Scale 370 has held that unless the allotment of land in question has been made by the State Government or Municipal Council or Board with a restriction upon the user of the land in question on a construction of commercial space upon change of land use no conversion charges can be levied under the provisions of 173A of the Act as they stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 30th September, 1999. This Court following the said judgment and another judgment of Division Bench of this Cort in the judgment of Suresh Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 (2) CDR 884 rendered on 18th February, 2008 in the case of Mangi Devi Vs.State of Raj. (SBCW No.1714/2005) whereby Division Bench held that if the permission to raise a commercial construction was granted prior to amendment in law on 30th September, 1999 then even if a fresh permission is required for the construction to be raised on the said land in question after amendment in the law on 30.9.1999 as no construction was raised in pursuance of permission already granted, no conversion charges can be levied by the Municipal Board or CW Nos.2206/05 & 2026/05-Devendra Puri Vs. Municipal Board : Order dt.20.2.2008 3/4 Council. 4. Accordingly, as far as this aspect of the controversy is concerned, the same is covered by a decision of this Court as well as Apex Court and, therefore, the said levy of conversion charges Rs.1,42,829/- cannot be sustained because the permission in the present case to raise construction of shops was given way back in the year 1966 vide Annex.2 dated 18.1.1966 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2026/2001 – Devendra Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan and others. 5. Accordingly, the respondent Municipal Board shall refund back the said amount of conversion charges of Rs.1,42,829/- deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated 7th September, 2000 vide Annex.4 to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 6. As far as another aspect of the matter is concerned namely alleged deviation in the actual construction completed by the petitioner as per the permission granted by the Municipal Board as well as by the interim order of this Court, this issue is left open for consideration by the competent authority of the Municipal Board for CW Nos.2206/05 & 2026/05-Devendra Puri Vs. Municipal Board : Order dt.20.2.2008 4/4 which if the State authority comes to the conclusion that there are some deviations in the construction, it will be open for him to give a notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard and pass appropriate order either to regularize the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and applicable Rules or to take appropriate steps for demolition of the same, if any. The necessary orders after hearing the petitioner may be passed within a period of 3 months from today. 7. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.8 & 9 babulal/-