DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“I. the impugned notice/order dated 10.03.2017 (An. 15) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii. the respondents No. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to process the application of the petitioners for renovation permission expeditiously as early as possible without insisting for conversion charges;

iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioners;

iv. writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”

2. The petitioners are claiming to have purchased a part of the property for which a free hold patta was issued by the erstwhile State on 29.10.1928. The property was purchased by the petitioners in a piecemeal manner and the Municipal Corporation issued an order of sub division dated 13.12.2016.

3. The petitioners were running a showroom in the property and the petitioners claim to be using it for commercial purposes since 1988.

4. The genesis of the controversy lies in the fact that the petitioners applied for permission to renovate the existing premises, and the respondents before considering such application, required the petitioners to pay conversion charges. Such imposition of conversion charges is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhavit Sharma and Mr. Hukam Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners applied for permission to renovate the existing premises vide application dated 12.01.2017, and when the said application was not being considered, the petitioners served a notice upon the respondents pointing out that the property in question is a free hold property, and therefore, they were not liable to pay any conversion charges, and since the property in question was already being used as commercial, therefore, it was a simple case of renovation and the permission should be immediately granted.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners also submitted before the respondents that the property was situated on the main Chopasni Road and as per the existing Master Plan, it is commercial land, and that, since the land use is not being changed, therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay the conversion charges.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that inspite of inviting objections, the Municipal Corporation did not receive any objection, but the petitioners were informed vide notice dated 10.03.2017 to pay the conversion charges, and then only their prayer for permission to raise construction or to make renovation will be considered.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the provision of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, wherein an amendment was made by Section 25 of the Rajasthan Act No. 21 of 1974, and Section 173A was brought to the Statute book, and for ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder:-

“173-A-Power of the State Government to allow change in the use of land-.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land has been allotted or sold to any person by a municipality or the State Government subject to the condition of restraining its use for a particular purpose, the State Government, may if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, allow the owner or holder of such land to use it for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was originally allotted or sold, on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed.

Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for difference areas and for difference purposes.

(2) The conversion charges so realized shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or to the fund of the munici