1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.37/2002
M/s. Polymoch Irrigation V/S D.L.S.C. & Ors.
Date of Judgment : 3rd September,2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J.
Mr.Dinesh Mehta, for the appellant.
Mr.Rishabh Sancheti, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GUPTA,J.)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment
of learned Single Judge dt. 5.12.2001 dismissing the writ
petition.
Petitioner by the writ petition prayed for
quashing the decision dt. 7.4.1999 taken by the District
Level Screening Committee, and for declaring clause 2 of
the Rajasthan Sales Tax Exemption Scheme,1998 to be
ultravires, and for declaring the petitioner to be
entitled for availing the benefit of the scheme.
The necessary factual averments are that the
petitioner’s predecessor in title got converted certain
2
agricultural land for commercial purposes under and in
accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment,
Conversion & Regularisation of Agricultural Land for
Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas)
Rules, 1981, hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1981,
and obtained Patta Annexure-1, and later on the
petitioner purchased the said land, and decided to
establish an industry of H.B.P.E. and H.D.P.E. Pipes and
sprinkler system, and domestic plastic pipes. It is
claimed that no objection certificates were obtained from
S.D.O., and Municipality, and then application was
submitted for seeking exemption under the Rajasthan Sales
Tax Exemption Scheme, 1998 furnishing requisite
informations, receipt whereof was acknowledged vide
Annexure-4. However, vide Annexure-5 the benefit of
incentive was refused. The copy of the minutes of the
meeting refusing the benefits is produced as Annexure-6.
A look at Annexure-6 shows that reason given by
the D.L.S.C. was that the industry has been commissioned
in banned area as defined in the Scheme.
The learned Single Judge has reproduced the
definition of banned area as given in clause 2(a) of the
Scheme, and found that it is not in dispute that under
master plan of Barmer there is a separate industrial
area, but the petitioner’s industry is not in the said
3
area. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the
provisions of Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules,
1959, and the fact that the petitioner did not get any
allotment of land under the said Rules. Interalia on this
basis, learned Single Judge declined to interfere with
the orders Annexure-5 and 6.
We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. It was firstly submitted that under 1981
Rules, the land can be converted either for residential
or commercial purposes, and the commercial purposes
include industrial purposes also, and since vide
Annexure-2 and 3, no objection was granted by the S.D.O.,
and Municipality, it cannot be said that the petitioner
was not entitled to the benefit under the Scheme inasmuch
as with the grant of no objection certificate Annexure-2
and 3 the rigor of banned area stood watered down, and
learned Single Judge was in error in dismissing the writ
petition.
The arguments looks to be attractive but on
closure scrutiny we do not find any substance in the
same.
True it is that in 1981 Rules conversion can be
either for residential, or commercial purposes, but that
is not the end of the matter, inasmuch as 1959 Rules do
4
separately exist, and Rule 11 thereof takes care of
situation, where industrial area does not exist, and
provides mechanism for handling such an eventuality. A
collective reading of the Rules of 1959 including Rule 11
thereof does make it clear, that the whole idea is that
if any industry is to be commissioned, it is to be
commissioned in the industrial area earmarked, or
established, and where no such industrial area is
earmarked, or established, then recourse can be had to
provisions of Rule 11, but then resort to subterfuge of
1981 Rules, and obtaining no objection certificates like
Annexures-2 and 3 cannot have the effect of liquidating
the rigor of Clause 2(a) of the Scheme.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any
error, to interfere with, in the impugned order.
The appeal thus has no force, and is hereby
dismissed.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/