2023 Supreme(Raj) 1273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J.
Devarsa Gas Chem. Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Collector, Pali and ors - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3460 of 2001
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr. R.D. Bhadu
Headnote:
Land Conversion - Industrial Purpose - The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 1992 - The petitioner, a company registered under The Companies Act 2013, sought to convert agricultural land for industrial purpose for establishment of Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) refilling/bottling plant. The court found that the activity of bottling LPG falls under the category of manufacturing process and is considered an industrial purpose under the Rules of 1992. The court quashed the orders demanding conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes, as the petitioner had obtained conversion for industrial purpose and was duly registered as a small scale industry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company registered under The Companies Act 2013, sought to convert agricultural land for industrial purpose for establishment of Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) refilling/bottling plant. The petitioner obtained conversion for industrial purpose and was duly registered as a small scale industry. The respondent demanded conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the activity of bottling LPG falls under the category of manufacturing process and is considered an industrial purpose under the Rules of 1992. The court quashed the orders demanding conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes, as the petitioner had obtained conversion for industrial purpose and was duly registered as a small scale industry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the authorities to demand conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes, the classification of the land use, and the legality of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the activity of bottling LPG falls under the category of manufacturing process and is considered an industrial purpose under the Rules of 1992. The court also emphasized that the petitioner had obtained conversion for industrial purpose and was duly registered as a small scale industry, thus quashing the orders demanding conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders demanding conversion charges applicable for commercial purposes, as the petitioner had obtained conversion for industrial purpose and was duly registered as a small scale industry.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
(i) the impugned order dated 05/09/2000 passed by the respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) That impugned order dated 20/6/2001 (Annex.13) passed by respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(iii) That the case of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner.
(iv) Any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under The Companies Act 2013 and was registered as a small scale industry and was also issued a certificate of registration dated 30.05.1994 (Annexure-1) by the Joint Director District Industries Centre, Department of Industry. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for conversion of the khatedari agricultural land situated at khasra No. 428/1 admeasuring 14 bighas in village Gajangarh, Gram Panchayat Chotila, Tehsil Rohit, District Pali from agricultural to non agricultural purpose for industrial purpose for establishment of Liquified Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) refilling/bottling plant. The Petitioner deposited the charges for conversion of Rs. 9700/-and Rs 2,494/-for conversion vide challan no.524 dated 1/1/1994 and challan no. 5637 dated 23/11/1994 respectively. The aforesaid application was duly processed under the The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 1992 (Hereinafter referred top as the Rules of 1992) and the Prescribed Authority (Deputy Collector, Pali), passed the conversion order dated 25/11/1994 (Annexure-2), wherein the land stood converted for industrial purpose for establishment of industry i.e. for Liquified petroleum gas (L.P.G.) refilling/bottling plant, in accordance with the Rules of 1992.
3. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a Notice by Deputy District Collector Pali dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure-3) stating therein that upon site inspection petitioner was liable to pay an additional amount of a sum of Rs. 3,33,875/-in 10 days failing which the amount would be realised by way of attachment. An oral inquiry was made in the office of respondent No.2 Accounts Officer (Income) Board of Revenue and the petitioner was informed that exparte inspection was made and the Collector has objected that since some L.P.G gas in big containers as well as cylinders were found lying at the site and the land in question seemed to be used for commercial purpose and the rate of conversion was paid as per Industrial use thus a demand and penalty order dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure-3) was issued by respondent No.2.
4. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the notice of demand dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure-3) by filing a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as SBCWP No.4036/1996 and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.05.2000 (Annexure-4) wherein the Notice of demand dated 24.10.1996 was quashed and direction was given to respondent no.2 to allow the petitioner to raise all contentions raised in the petition and hear the petitioners in person and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. Further the respondents also filed their reply and placed reliance upon various circulars that the petitioner unit can only be established after paying charges at commercial rates. Thereafter respondent No.2 issued a Notice dated 01.07.2000 calling the petitioner to plead its case and in pursuance of the aforesaid Notice the petitioner company filed reply dated 27/06/2000 (Annexure-8) challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 and 3.
5. Thereafter the petitioner received a Communication dated 14/09/2000 (Annexure-11) along with a copy of decision directing the authorities to pass appropriate orders in pursuance to the decision given by respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 05