The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the amended Rule 10 (1) and Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural land for Non Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007, in the context of the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The unsuccessful writ petitioners approach this court in the present appeal. They applied and were permitted conversion of agricultural lands (which were originally used for agricultural purposes) into residential purpose on 16.4.2004 by an order issued by the competent authority. The order of conversion stipulated that the land could not be used for any purpose other than for what conversion was permitted (i.e. as residential). It was discovered and duly recorded in a report of the Tehsildar, dated 23.6.2015 that the land was used for commercial purposes. The appellant sought for change of purpose in terms of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural land for Non Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007. The Rule as originally stood reads as follows:

"10. Change in purpose of Conversion.- (1) If a person, after the issue of conversion order under Rule 9 for any specific purpose, intends to use it other non-agricultural purpose, he shall submit an application to the prescribed authority in Form "C" alongwith a challan indicating the difference amount of premium, if any. "

2. By Notification dated 6.10.2016, the said Rule 10 (1) was amended by way of substitution rule which reads as follows: -

"(1) If a person, after the issue of conversion order under Rule 9 for any specific purpose, intends to use it other non-agricultural purpose, he may submit an application online or in physical format in Form-C along with a copy of receipt as proof of deposit of the payment of the difference amount of conversion charges, if any. If application is submitted online then hard-copy of complete application shall also be required to produce within 7 days to the prescribed authority."

3. The application for conversion was rejected by an order dated 19.4.2017, by which the respondent Revenue Authorities demanded Rs.1,82,348/- as conversion charges. In these circumstances, the appellants approached this Court.

4. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition, was apparently influenced by Rule 13 which stated inter-alia that if an individual who used agriculture land for nonagriculture purpose without permission could seek regularization in accordance with Form and challan depositing four times of the conversion charges, prescribed in Rule 7. The learned Singe Judge observed that:-

"The land in question was converted for residential purposes but was being used for commercial purposes, which is clearly use of land for non agricultural purpose without permission and, consequently, the case of the petitioner would be governed by provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2007 only and, therefore, the respondents were justified in raising the demand as raised vide Annexure-17,18 and 19."

5. It is contended that the impugned order is erroneous because when the appellants applied for the conversion, the character of the land had ceased to be agricultural and consequently, Rule 13 did not apply but rather in terms of the amended Rule 10 (1), the application for conversion had to be considered.

6. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that the question of applicability of the amended Rule 10 was never urged and the proviso to Rule 11 was urged on behalf of the appellant to say that 25% of the conversion charges alone only had to be paid which was correctly declined by the Single Judge.

7. As is evident from the narration of facts, the conversion took place in 2004. The application by which further conversion into commercial use was sought clearly stated that the appellant had at the relevant time not used the premises for residential purposes. At the same time, the court is of the opinion that this ground alone cannot be disruptive of this appeal because Rule 13 did not apply ipso-facto in the circumstances of this case. After conversion of the land in 2004, the original use as agricultural land ceased. Rule 13 applies only when the lands are agricultural and are dive