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

2000 Supreme(Raj) 379

Rajasthan High Court
Honble N.N. MATHUR & AMARESH KU. SINGH, JJ.
Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Bhandari & Anr. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 592 of 1999
Decided On : May 22, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
Dinesh Maheshwari, for Appellants M.R. Singhvi, for Respondents

Headnote:Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, Sec. 173-A, Transfer of Property act, Sec. 8, 10 & 55 – Demanded conversion charges u/Sec. 173-A of the Act of 1959 in respect of the land which was neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government – Held – The provisions of Sec. 173-A must be read with the provisions contained in Sec. 8 and 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act – Land was purchased from private person – All rights of the former owner have been transferred to the purchaser and he is entitled to all the rights referred to in Secs. 8 and 55(6)(a) of the T.P. Act – Unless the rights are acquired by the State Government or the Municipality, the purchaser cannot be deprived of its rights – Conversion charges cannot be demanded u/Sec. 173-A of the Act of 1959. (Paras 18 & 19)

       The provisions of Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act must be read with the provisions contained in Section 8 and Section 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Where a person has purchased the plot of land from private citizen who was the owner of the land and by such purchase of land all the rights of the former owner have been transferred to the purchaser, the provisions of Sections 8 and 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act would apply and the purchaser would be entitled to all the rights referred in Sections 8 and 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Unless the rights, in the immovable property, are acquired by the State Government or by the Municipality, as the case may be, the purchaser cannot be deprived of the rights which are available to him under Section 8 and Section 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to deprive the owners of immovable properties situated within municipal area of the rights which are available to them under Section 8 and Section 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Even in the case of land sold or allotted by the State Government or the Municipality, the provisions of Section 8 and Section 55(6)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable and, therefore, if the sale or allotment of land by the Municipality or the State Government was without any condition, restraining the purchaser from using the land for a specified purpose only, no question of demanding any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act would arise if the purchaser wants to change the use of the land. (Para 19)

Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

(2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2918/97. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 Rajendra Kumar was allowed and the appellants as well as respondent No.2 were directed not to insist for payment of conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.

(3). The only question which arises for decision is whether the State Government, can demand any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in respect of a land, which was neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government. The respondent No.1 (petitioner), owned shops which are construced on land measuring 3199 sq. ft. in area. He submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and the permission was granted to him by the Commissioner vide letter dated 10.10.1979 (Annexure 1). Thereafter the petitioner moved another application seeking permission to raise construction and permission was granted to him vide order dated 5.1.1988 (Annexure 2). After obtaining the permission vide Annexure 2, the petitioner raised construction on the land belonging to him. After some time, he wanted to make further alterations and, therefore, he moved another application on 29.12.1995 seeking permission to raise construction. On submission of this application, he was required to submit some documents which were submitted by him but permission was not granted. He, therefore, served a notice on the Municipal Corporation through his counsel on 22.7.1996. After the service of notice, the petitioner was informed that a technical report was being called and, after submission of the technical report, the matter would be placed before the Building Committee for consideration and after the submission of the technical report, the Building Committee, considered the application of the petitioner and, by resolution No.15, granted permission. The Commissioner, in view of the decision of the Building Committee, accorded his approval on 14.2.1997 but added a condition that commercial charges be realised. The letter dated 14.2.1997 demanding commercial charges was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was also served with notice dated 18.6.1997 asking him to deposit the conversion charges within a period of 7 days. The amount of conversion charges demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 11,00,011.90. The land on which the petitioner had constructed shops in which he wanted to make alterations was neither sold nor allotted by the State Government or the Municipality to him or to his ancestors. According to the averment made in the petition, the land on which the shops were constructed forms part of the ancestral property situated in Moti Chowk, Jodhpur. A dispute regarding the title and possession over that land arose and a regular suit No. 11/1962 was filed which was dismissed by the trial court but by judgment and decree dated 9.3.1973, passed in D.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 30/67, the suit was decreed in accordance with the decree passed by the High Court and the property was delivered to the petitioners ancestors and blue print had been prepared at the time of deliversy of possession. In para No.3, it is also mentioned that the State had filed an appeal against the decree but that appeal had been dismissed. Thus, the petitioners case was that the land was his ancestral property which came into possession of his ancestors in accordance with the decree passed by the High Court. It is also stated in the writ petition that Shri Oswal Singh Sabha had instituted a regular civil suit against Shri Sire Chand Bhandari, Manak Chand, Rajendra Bhandari and Raj Kumar Bhandari and that suit was ultimately disposed of by compromise and in accordance with the compromise, the petitioner got two pieces of land measuring 62 x 62 and

































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