ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel on either side.

4. We are in these cases concerned with the interpretation of Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959, as amended by the Rajasthan Municipalities Amendment Act 1999 (Act No.19 of 1999), which deals with the power of the State Government to allow change in use of land on payment of conversion charges.

5. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, following the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Pareshar Soni (2007) 14 SCC 144, disposed of all the appeals, holding that the Municipal Corporation is not empowered to demand any amount for change of use of the land. We may refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.240 of 2013 @ SLP(C) 11907 of 2009 for disposal of all these appeals, since common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals.

6. Respondents herein purchased a plot of land, with a house, on 9.9.2002, situated in a residential area by way of a registered sale deed. Later, an application under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Change of Land Use) Rules, 2000 (for short ‘2000 Rules”) was preferred for conversion of land use from residential to commercial. They also deposited self- assessment amount of Rs.10,500/- for the said purpose. Municipal Corporation, while considering the said application gave a public notice on 22.7.2003 inviting objections, if any, under Rule 4(1) of the 2000 Rules. The Land Use Change Committee of the Corporation, on 23.2.2004, approved the request for conversion of land use. Municipal Corporation then demanded an amount of Rs.5,70,300/- as land use conversion charges in accordance with the 2000 Rules read with Section 173-A, as amended.

7. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition No.1844 of 2004 challenging the vires of amended Section 173-A of the Act and to quash the demand notice dated 2.4.2004. In the meanwhile another Writ Petition No.879 of 2003 was also filed by one Mewa Ram challenging the vires of the amended Section 173-A.

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide its judgment in Mewa Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (1) WLC (Raj) 1, was pleased to upheld the vires of Section 173-A as inserted by Act No. 19 of 1999. Following that judgment, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on 28.11.2007, remanded the matter to the learned single Judge to decide whether the writ petition be entertained or not. The case was later registered as D.B.C. Writ Petition No.430 of 2008.

8. The learned Single Judge, however, placing reliance on the judgment in Pareshar Soni’s case (supra) allowed the writ petition and the notice dated 2.4.2004 was quashed, though it was contended by the Corporation that the applicability of Section 173-A (evidently as amended) was neither argued nor considered by this Court in Pareshar Soni case. The Municipal Corporation then took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal No.159 of 2009. The court dismissed the appeal holding that the issue raised stood covered by the judgment in Pareshar Soni’s case (supra).

9. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the High court has committed an error in taking the view that the issue raised stood covered by the judgment of this Court in Pareshar Soni’s case (supra). Learned counsel pointed out that this Court was dealing with the un-amended Section 173-A of the Act in that case, but, so far as the present appeals are concerned, applications have to be considered by the amended Section 173-A read with 2000 Rules.

10. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel submitted, in any view of the matter, the land in question falls in a commercial area as per the latest approve