The court clarified the requirements for the application of Section 173-A and emphasized the need for evidence to support demands for conversion charges.

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the issue to be decided in this special leave petition is limited to the interpretation of Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was decided to hear out the special leave petition at the admission stage itself.

( 2 ) THE facts involved in the special leave petition, in brief, are as follows:

( 3 ) THE respondent herein, Pareshar Soni, purchased an old house situated at Moti Chowk, Jodhpur, from one smt. Shanti Kumari Lodha by a registered sale deed dated 15. 5. 1987. It appears from the judgment forming the subject matter of the special leave petition that smt. Shanti Kumari acquired the ownership and possession of the said property pursuant to a judgment and decree passed by the Calcutta High Court on 6. 6. 1972 in Civil Suit No. 867 of 1934. After purchasing the property the said respondent filed an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, under Section 170 (1) of the Act seeking permission to construct a residential house and a few shops on the said property. Inasmuch as, the Municipal Corporation did not take any step on the said application, a notice was sent on behalf of the respondent herein to the corporation under Section 170 (8) of the Act providing for a response within 15 days of receipt of the notice. It appears that the Corporation did not pay any heed even to the said notice, and accordingly, by invoking the deeming clause the respondent started construction work on the said property.

( 4 ) ON 24th May, 1997 the Municipal Corporation raised a demand upon the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,66,874/-by way of conversion charges and compounding fees. The respondent objected to the said demand and filed a representation challenging its validity on the ground that the property in question is nearly 200 years old and reference thereto had been made in a Patta of the year 1865 pertaining to a neighbouring house, showing the property to be a free-hold property. Consequently, according to the respondent, no commercial charges could be levied thereupon. The respondent, however, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,619 towards construction fees. As the representation filed by the respondent did not yield any result, the respondent was compelled to file a writ petition before the Jodhpur Bench of the rajasthan High Court, being SBC Writ Petition No. 2159 of 1997. The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, which is the petitioner No. 2 in the present special leave petition filed its reply contending that Section 173-A of the Act permits the State Government to allow any person to use the land for the purposes other than for which it was originally allotted. It was also contended that the regulation of the areas, markets etc. were all within the compass of the Act and the Patta said to have been issued by the earlier State would also remain subject to the Act. One other stand which was taken before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent/writ petitioner had failed to produce a copy of the Patta for the property in question to indicate the rights and the conditions of usage of the land provided therein. Upon hearing the parties the learned single Judge by his judgment and order dated 19th July, 1999 dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of non-production of the Patta by the respondent herein.

( 5 ) THE respondent thereupon filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the aforesaid High Court, being DB (Civil) Special Appeal No. 1109/1999. Before the Division Bench the main contention advanced on behalf of the respondent herein was that the property in dispute was a free-hold Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)property which was nearly 2 centuries old and at the relevant point of time the erstwhile State had allotted the same on a free-hold basis. Consequently, the provisions of Section 173-A of the Act would not apply in the instant case.

( 6 ) IT was also contended on behalf of the respondent that the impugned demand notice w