SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 819

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
THE MAYOR JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THAKUR SHIV RAJ SINGH & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6030 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(C)No.7710 of 2019)
Decided On : 05-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Shiv Mangal Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Kartikey Bhatt, Shrey Kapoor, Shikha Sandhu, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Vivek Jain, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory provisions have to be given effect to.

Headnote:Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - Section 173-A(2) as amended by Act 19 of 1999 - Master Plan 2011 - Property in question marked as ‘residential’ - Respondents were obliged to pay conversion charges for commercial use - No error in appellants’ demand to respondents. (Para 15, 16)

       Facts of the case:

       Lt. Col. Late Harnath Singh, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents by registered sale deed had purchased the property in question from His Highness Sawai Man Singh of Jaipur. After death of Lt.Col. Late Harnath Singh the respondents became owner of the property. The respondents, with intent to develop by constructing a multi-storeyed building, commercial-cum-residential complex in the area of 8080.14 square meter, made an application to Corporation for conversion of land use as condition precedent for sanction of building plan for constructing commercial-cum-residential complex.

       The respondents reserving their rights deposited the conversion charges of Rs.1,01,04,672/-. Thereafter an order was passed by the Corporation allowing the conversion of the land use of the aforesaid land. The building plan was thereafter approved by the Corporation on 08.01.2004.

       The respondents issued notice to the Corporation calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,86,703/-along with interest.

       The respondents filed a Writ Petition

       A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Special Appeal and directed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,01,04,672/- with interest.

       Finding of the Court;

       Appellant Corporation rightly demanded conversion charge.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

The Jaipur Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur dated 12.01.2018 by which the Special Appeal filed by the respondents questioning the judgment of learned Single Judge has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to refund the conversion charges deposited by the respondents along with six percent interest.

2. Brief facts of case giving rise to this appeal are:

Lt. Col. Late Harnath Singh, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents by registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959 had purchased the property in question known as ‘Lal Niwas’ from His Highness Sawai Man Singh of Jaipur. Lt.Col. Late Harnath Singh died on 08.01.1997 after which the respondents became owner of the property. The respondents, with intent to develop by constructing a multi-storeyed building, commercial-cum-residential complex in the area of 8080.14 square meter, made an application to Corporation for conversion of land use as condition precedent for sanction of building plan for constructing commercial-cum-residential complex. The Corporation issued an order dated 22.02.2003 directing the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.1,01,04,672/-towards the conversion charges. The respondents reserving their rights deposited the amount through pay order dated 20.03.2003. An order dated 06.05.2003 was passed by the Corporation allowing the conversion of the land use of the aforesaid land. The building plan was thereafter approved by the Corporation on 08.01.2004. The respondents issued notice dated 28.04.2004 to the Corporation calling upon the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,86,703/-along with interest. The respondents filed a Writ Petition No.4783 of 2004 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench praying for following reliefs:

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order and direction impugned orders dated 22.02.2003 (Annexure.2), order dated 01.04.1003 (Annexure.4), 19.11.2003 & 20.12.2003 (Annexure.7) passed by the respondents No.2 & 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to refund the amount of Rupees 1,01,04,672/-charged/ extracted by the respondents towards conversion charges of the land in question and an amount of Rupees 6,31,542/-and Rupees 6,59,961/- charged by the respondents towards Shahari Jama Bandi & interest thereon, thus totalling Rs. 1,13,96,175/-from the petitioners along with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon as damages for unnecessarily withholding the aforesaid amount w.e.f. date of deposit to the date of payment. The respondents may further be directed to refund the total amount as prayed hereinabove to the petitioners in the proportion viz. 30% to Thakur Shiv Raj Singh (Petitioner No.1) and 1/3rd of the remaining to each of the Petitioners No.2 to 4.

(iii) Cost of litigation be awarded to the petitioners.

(iv) Any other order(s) as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition be also passed in favour of the humble petitioners and against the respondents.”

3. In the writ petition, the Corporation filed its reply. The Corporation resisted the writ petition. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated 04.07.2006 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against the judgment of learned Single Judge, Special Appeal was filed by the respondent before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 12.01.2018 allowed the Special Appeal and directed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,01,04,672/- with interest. The Corporation aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench has come up in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is the respondents who had submitted an application for paying conversion charges to
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top