Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order dt. 2.7.14 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners questioning the legality of order dt. 17.10.12 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Barmer, whereby order dt. 14.9.10 passed by the Authorised Officer, converting the use of the petitioners' land ad measuring 1.10 bighas i.e. 2430 sq. meter, comprising khasra No. 82/6, situated at village -Nai Undari, from agricultural to residential, under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non Agricultural in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007 (for short "the Rules"), stands set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Authorised Officer to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the Rules and the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress. The petition was being contested by the respondent No. 3 & 4 by filing their separate reply. However, during pendency of the petition, the respondent No. 4 has filed an application (APPLW 654/15) stating that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 no more wishes to challenge the conversion order dt. 14.9.10 issued in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, he has sought permission to withdraw the appeal filed by him before the RAA being No. 20/12, decided vide order dt. 5.9.12. Yet another application (APPLW 653/15) has been filed by the petitioners stating that in view of the withdrawal of the appeal by the respondent No. 4 as prayed for, the writ petition may be disposed of while affirming the conversion order dt. 14.9.10 passed by the SDO, Gudamalani. Thus, precisely, the prayer of the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 is that the conversion order passed in favour of the petitioners by the Authorised Officer, which is found to be contrary to the Rules by RAA and affirmed by the Board of Revenue, deserves to be upheld by this Court inasmuch as, the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have entered into a compromise and the respondent No. 4 has no grievance against the conversion order passed by the SDO in favour of the petitioners being upheld.
(2.) It is to be noticed that the appeal before the RAA, questioning the legality of the conversion order passed by the SDO, was preferred by the respondent No. 4 not for enforcement of his individual right rather, in the public interest contending that the conversion order passed violates the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the Rules as also the norms laid down by the Indian Road Congress, prohibiting the conversion of the land situated at the distance of 40 meters from the centre of the road. It is pertinent to note that even the State Government while filing a reply to the writ petition has taken the categorical stand that as per the norms of the Indian Road Congress, conversion of agricultural land which falls within 40 meters from the centre of the road for non agricultural purposes is not permissible. In this regard, the reliance is placed on circular dt. 24.2.05 and 29.9.14 issued by the State Government. In the considered opinion of this Court the norms laid down regarding the conversion of agricultural land for non agricultural purposes falling on National Highways or State Highways have to be adhered to strictly and therefore, the order passed by the RAA, affirmed by the Board of Revenue cannot be set at naught merely because the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 have entered into a compromise. Accordingly, the applications (APPLW 653/15 and 654/15) preferred by the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 respectively, are rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that it has been specifically mentioned in the conversion order dt. 14.9.10 that on the land falling within 40 meters from the centre of the road, no construction shall be raised, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by either of the authorities. Learned counsel urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioners have already surrendered the land upto 40 meters from the centre of the road for which a specific order has been passed by Tehsildar, Gudamalani way back on 4.7.11 and thus, the land falling within 40 meters from the centre of the road already stand reverted to the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that so as to fulfil the norms laid down the petitioners having surrendered the land falling 40 meters of the centre of the road, there is no reason why the conversion of the land of the petitioners for the remaining land should be set aside and thus, the RAA has seriously erred in remanding the matter to the Authorised Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners undertake not to raise any construction over the land falling within 40 meters from the centre of the road which already stand surrendered to the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question has been offered by the petitioners for establishing a Retail Outlet Dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect whereof, a Letter of Intent was issued by the HPCL in their favour on 14.7.12. It is submitted that on account of the conversion order being set aside, the petitioners could not apply for the conversion of the land use for establishing the Retail Outlet.;