JUDGMENT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. The above mentioned five writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them subject matter in dispute is the same.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/1988
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with the prayer that the order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar by which conversion charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per bigha per annum were demanded from the petitioner and further, demand notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4 to’ the writ petition) issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar in pursuance of the order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3) be quashed.
3. It arises in the following circumstances:
The petitioner had a Khatedari land 6 biswas in Killa No. 4, 5 biswas in Killa Nos. 6, 5 biswas in Killa No. 25 and Killa Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 measuring 6 bighas and 16 biswas in Square No. 2 of Chak 15-Z, Tehsil Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner intended to instal the brick kiln and, therefore, he applied for conversion of his Khatedari agricultural land into non-agricultural land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural into Non-Agricultural Land) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1961)”. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) after making proper enquiries converted the land of the petitioner by his order dated 19.11.1987 (Annex. 1) and in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 2720/- through challan, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2.
Thereafter, the State Government through amendment on 27.7.1989 added Part-C containing conditions No. 19, 20 and 21 in the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “Conditions of 1966”) and as per condition No. 20(3) of the Conditions of 1966, the lessee shall pay the lease amount which shall be four hundred rupees per bigha per annum.
In pursuance of the said amendment, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) issued order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3 to the writ petition) and through that order, he demanded from the petitioner conversion charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per bigha per annum in place of Rs. 40/- per bigha per annum and in pursuance of the said order of the Collector, Sri Gangangar dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3), the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) issued notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4 to the writ petition) by which he made demand of Rs. 27,200/- from the petitioner. In this writ petition, both the order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3) and notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4) have been challenged by the petitioner.
4. In this writ petition, the main arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are:
(1) That since the Conditions No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 & 20 of the Conditions of 1966 have been declared ultra vires by the Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Bux v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , therefore, no action can be taken on the basis of these Conditions of 1966 and thus, issuance of order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3) and notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4) in pursuance of the Condition No. 20 (3) are per se illegal and without jurisdiction.
(2) That conditions No. 19 and 20 were added through amendment in 1989 and before that amendment, the petitioner had already deposited the conversion charges at the rate of Rs. 40 per bigha per annum and, therefore, from this point of view, no fresh charges can be demanded from the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Point No. 1
6. So far as the point No. 1 is concerned, there is a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated July, 18, 2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7877/95 State of Rajasthan v. Seater Kiln Co. in which it was made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that conditions No. 19 and 20 were not touched and were not declared ultra vires by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Bux (supra).
7. Therefore, the argument No. 1 that the conditions No. 19 and 20 of the Conditions of 1966 were also declared ultra vires by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd Bux (supra) cannot be accepted.
Point No. 2
8. There is no dispute on the point that as per the provisions of Rules of 1961, the petitioner’s land was converted by the Collector, Sri Gangangar (respondent No. 2) through order dated 19.11.1987 (Annex. 1) and in pursuance of that order, the petitioner deposited the requisite conversion charges through challan (Annex. 2). The conditions No. 19 and 20 came into force with effect from 27.7.1989 after making amendment in the Condition of 1966.
9. Since before coming into force of the conditions No. 19 and 20 through amendment in the Conditions of 1966 with effect from 27.7.1989, the land of the petitioner was already converted for the purpose of brick kiln and for that he had already deposited the requisite amount, therefore, In my considered opinion, no fresh or revised charges can be levied by the respondents pursuant to condition No. 20 (3) of the Conditions of 1966 for the same purpose i.e. conversion of land for brick kiln for which land had already been converted by the Collector under the Rules of 1961.
10. The amendment is generally made prospectively and not retrospectively and no where it appears that the condition No. 20 of the Conditions of 1966 was made effective retrospectively. Thus, condition No. 20 came into force when the amendment was made in the Conditions of 1966 on 27.7.1989 and since the petitioner had already deposited the requisite amount prior to coming into force of condition No. 20 through amendment on 27.7.1989, therefore, he cannot be asked to deposit the fresh or revised charges.
11. For the reasons given above, the order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Sri Ganganagar in pursuance of the condition No. 20(3) of the Conditions of 1966 cannot be sustained and similarly, the demand notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4) issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the demand notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4) issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Gangangar and quashed. No. order as to costs.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2332/1988
12. This writ petition raises the same controversy as involved in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88.
For the reasons given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned order dated 4.6.1988 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the demand notice dated 5.7.1988 (Annex. 5) issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Gangangar are quashed. No order as to costs.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1392/1989
13. This writ petition raises the same controversy as involved in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88.
For the reasons given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned order dated 5.4.1989 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Sri Ganganagar is quashed. No order as to costs.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 138/1989
14. This writ petition raises the same controversy as involved in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88.
For the reasons given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.1988 (Annex. 5) passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Sri Ganganagar is quashed. No order as to costs.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2333/1988
15. This writ petition raises the same controversy as involved in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88.
For the reasons given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/88, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned demand notice dated 30.6.1988 (Annex. 4) issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Gangangar is quashed. No order as to costs.