V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged has levy of service charge and interest therein. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no service charges could be collected because the land was allotted by the State Government and at that time there was no such stipulation to make the payment of service charges.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that under the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 it is provided that the service charges if any, imposed or may here -in -after imposed by imposed by the Corporation shall be payable by the allottee in addition to land, every year in advance by the end of April each year. The right of the Corporation to revise the rate of service charges was reserved and it was provided that the decision of the Corporation shall be final, conclusive and binding on the allottee and shall not be questioned in any court of law or otherwise. In the notification dated 13.7.1982 the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 were amended and a new Rule 12 was added which provided that the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited shall be compowered to make allotment in accordance with the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 of vacant plots to the interprenures in the industrial areas notified by the RIICO. The Corporation was also authorised to execute the lease -deed and realise the development charges, lease money and other dues from interprenures to whom plots have already been allotted in accordance with the provisions of these rules. This provision makes it clear that the Corporation has been authorised to realise not only the development charges, lease rent, but also other dues form the interprenures to whom the plots have already been allotted. The validity of Rule 12 is not in dispute and, therefore, even in respect of plots which have already been allotted, the Corporation is authorised to realise service charges and other dues and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it should be realised only prospectively from those allottees to whom the plots have been allotted after coming into force of these rules has no substance. It is true that other charges could be realised from the date this Rule 12 has come into force but even, if the allotments have been made earlier to this rule, the liability can be imposed prospectively. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. The respondents have also given the details of expenditure incurred by the Corporation and the amount realised by way of service charges is only 10% of the expenditure incurred.
(3.) THE writ petition having no force is accordingly dismissed.;