Penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 can only be levied in cases where the land has been unauthorizedly converted and used for residential or commercial purposes.

1. - The petitioners who are 21 in number along with four other persons viz. Jagdish, Mahesh, Gopal, Krishna and Ratan Kumar jointly purchased four parcels of agricultural lands bearing arazi number 899, 900, 901 and 902 situated at Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. The land was purchased after 20-8-81 from respective khatedars of the aforesaid khasra numbers. The entire land in question was agricultural land and situated within Municipal limits of town Nimbahera.

2. Though the petitioner had purchased the land jointly and each one of them had interest in the land, each one of them separately filed an application for permission to convert a part of aforesaid land from agricultural to abadi and to use the same for residential purpose. In each application, the area with reference to which permission for conversion was sought, was demarcated. Separate order was passed in the case of each of the petitioners on 5-10-89. The Sub Divisional Officer Nimbahera directed the recovery of amounts on the following counts -

1. Conversion charges.

2. Penalty purported to be under R. 13 (2) on the ground that purchases have been made by the applicant for conversion after 20-8-81.

3. The penalty was calculated @ 75% of the conversion charges which is indicative of the fact that no construction was made on the land in question.

4. Peripheral development charges @ 4/- per sq. yard.

5. Urban Development charges @ 15/- per sq. yard.
Above facts are not disputed by the respondents.

3. The petitioners in this petition allege the levying of penalty amount purported to be charged under R. 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purpose in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1981) and have also been challenged that the respondents are only entitled to charge either development charges or peripheral development charges depending upon the situation of the land within Municipal limit or within peripheral limit, but are not entitled to charge both. In the present case it is not disputed that the land is situated within Municipal limit and the petitioner does not dispute that the charges at the rate prescribed for Municipal area limit are chargeable. He contends that peripheral development charges are not leviable.

4. The petitioners No. 1 to 5, 14, 15 and 17 had deposited the penalty amount as well as peripheral charges and have obtained sale deed prior to filing of the writ petition. However, the remaining petitioners have not deposited the said amount. It has also been brought to the notice in the petition that in the first instance a Circular was issued by the Government dated April 9, 1987 (Annex. 1) clarifying the position that in respect of agricultural land which had been transferred after 20-8-81, the penalty will be chargeable only in the cases, the said land is unauthorisedly converted and used for residential or commercial purposes but the provisions regarding the levying of penalty is not to cover the cases where the land is being in converted and used for the purpose other than agricultural after it has been so authorised.

5. Another Circular was issued on July 23, 1987 (Annexure 2) modifying the earlier Circular dated April 9, 1987 (Annexure 1) that in case any person or housing society had purchased land after 20-8-81 and he/it has raised unauthorised construction on the said land, the rate of penalty under Rules of 1981 will be 100% equal to the conversion charges for such unauthorised use of the land. The circular went on to state that in case no construction has been raised on the land, the penalty will still be leviable though at 75% of the conversion charges. It is alleged that by pressing into service Circular Annexure 2 dated 23-7-87, the SDO had passed the order imposing penalty in respect of land in question even though no unauthorised use by way of construction or otherwise of the said agricultural land has been m