Unregistered agreements to sell do not create vested rights for land conversion under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

Order :

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 17.10.2017, 16.05.2024 and 07.11.2024 allowing the application of M/s Pearl Spytech Realtors LLP and Arvind Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Nos.19 and 20'), for conversion of the land use and dismissing the appeal & revision filed by the petitioner respectively.

2. The facts are that the petitioner is a society registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner for developing a residential scheme, entered into the agreements to sell dated 19.08.1998 with Pushpa Devi W/o Arjun Singh and Ghasi S/o Jagannath for purchasing their shares in the property mentioned in the agreements to sell. The supplementary agreements to sell dated 15.09.2003 and 24.01.2004 were executed by Ghasi and legal representatives of Pushpa Devi. Petitioner on 12.01.2003 under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1956’) applied to Jaipur Development Authority for conversion of the land. On 05.04.2004 Ghasi and legal representatives of Pushpa Devi executed power of attorney in favour of Sohan Lal Bairwa. Through power of attorney holder the land in question was sold to Roop Narain Raigar s/o Mahadev Raigar by a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2008. The respondent Nos.19 and 20 applied under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 for conversion of land. After inviting objections by publishing a notice in two daily newspapers, order for land conversion dated 17.10.2017 was passed. It would be appropriate to note that the petitioner chose not to raise objection in pursuance to the notice. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conversion was dismissed on 16.05.2024. The petitioner failed in revision and hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner for conversion of land for non agricultural purposes is still pending. The contention is petitioner being in possession of land was entitled for allotment of the land and order of conversion of land should have been passed. Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 are relied upon to argue that on the basis of agreement to sell the conversion of land is permissible. The argument is that the appellate and revisional authorities erred in holding that the khatedari rights cannot be transferred by an unregistered agreement to sell.

4. On a pin pointed query during course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the petitioner has neither challenged the sale deed in favour of Roop Narain Raigar nor the steps were taken for specific performance of the agreements to sell.

5. Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 deals with the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose and prescribes the procedure to be followed for doing so. Sub-Sections (7) and (8)being relied upon are reproduced :-

"(7) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, when an order granting permission under this section is passed with respect to a land situated in an urban area, on and from the date of such order,-

(a) tenancy rights over such land of the person to whom permission under this section is granted shall stand extinguished, and (b) the land shall be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the local authority under section 102-A and shall be available for allotment to the person to whom permission is granted under this section, or to the successors, assignees or transferees of such person, by the local authority for any permissible non-agricultural purposes in accordance with the rules, regulations or bye- laws made under the law applicabl