Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice dt. 1.7.2013 by which the Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana has required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,81,520/ - as conversion charges for conversion of the land measuring 1229 sq. yards, which is being used for private school and marriage garden. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that actual measurement of the land is 1001 sq. yards and that the land is not being used for any school and it is being used only for marriage garden. Petitioner himself applied to the municipal authorities under Sec. 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for its conversion and that the concerned Patwari as also the Junior Engineer of the Municipal Board had computed the conversion charges in the sum of Rs. 4,17,416 and that the present computation by the respondents is based on certain audit objection, which is incorrect; firstly because the measurement of the land is not correctly taken and secondly it has ignored the computation made by the respondent -Municipal authorities themselves. It is argued that this Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 16.7.2013 stayed the operation of the notice, requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,17,416/ - which petitioner accordingly deposited.
(2.) SHRI Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the computation made by the Junior Engineer of the Municipal Board was not correct. In fact, the conversion charges were to be paid at the rate of Rs. 4,400 per sq. yard, hence the total amount came to Rs. 10,81,520/ -. The Senior Audit Officer vide audit report dt. 29.9.2006 has directed to recover the aforesaid amount at the rate of 20% of the reserved price as per Rule 12(1)(Kha) of the Rajasthan Municipal (Change of Land Use) Rules, 1959, therefore pursuant thereto, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that this writ petition has been filed only against the show cause notice dt. 1.7.2013 and the petitioner has to file the reply and now since the Municipal Board is contesting the matter, petitioner is required to approach the Director, Local Bodies, who shall examine as to the correct amount, which the petitioner is required to pay as conversion charges of the land by getting the land actually measured. Petitioner would be entitled to place before him any material or make any submission, which he has raised before this Court. The appropriate order on the application of the petitioner in this behalf may be passed by the Director, Local Bodies within four months from the date copy of this order is produced before him. During the aforesaid period of four months, no further recovery pursuant to the notice dt. 1.7.2013 (Annexure -9) shall be made from the petitioner. However, this order would be co -terminus with the order finally passed by the Director, Local Bodies. It is made clear that the deposit made by the petitioner would be liable to be adjusted against the conversion charges as may be determined by the Director, Local Bodies and shall be subject to final order that may be passed by the Director, Local Bodies and whereupon the respondent may consider issuing lease deed to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.;