PRAMOD KUMAR vs Urban Improvement Trust

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 1.1.1993 dismissing his Complaint Case No. 324/91. Complainant had agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 311/3 situated in Village Paneriyon Ki Madari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The complainant made an application to the authorised officer under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 for conversion of land for residential purposes. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Conversion II, Udaipur by his order dated 2.7.1983 allowed conversion of 266.666 sq. yds agricultural land for residential purposes in favour of the complainant subject to the complainant depositing the conversion charges, development and peripheral development charges. The complainant deposited the entire conversion charges, development and peripheral development charges with the authorised officer. A patta on lease-hold basis was accordingly issued in favour of the complainant on 18.11.1985. After conversion, the complainant applied to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur f or making construction of house on this converted land. The U.I.T. however, required the complainant to deposit Rs. 9,600/-as development charges and Rs. 5,981/-as penalty. As the complainant had to take loan for construction of the house, he deposited these amounts. Thereafter on 22.8.1991 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur alleging that the Urban Improvement Trust had no authority to charge development charges and penalty. The complainant also referred to a notice issued by the Urban Improvement Trust on 19.5.1990 wherein it was notified that penalty amount will not be charged from persons who deposited development charges in lump sum before 31.5.1990. Despite this, penalty amount was charged from the complainant. The Urban Improvement Trust has thereafter given permission to the complainant to make construction on the converted land, on 6.2.1990. However, in the permission letter issued by die Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur on 6.2.1990 it was mentioned at item No. 20 of the permission that it would not be the responsibility of the U.I.T. to carry out development work. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint for refund of the development charges and penalty deposited by him with the Urban Improvement Trust on 1.1.1990. The version of the opposite party was that a notice regarding not charging penalty had been issued on 19.5.1990. The complainant had deposited the development charges and penalty before this date and, therefore, the relaxation was not applicable to him. The opposite party also pleaded that development work will be carried out from out of the amount deposited as development charges. As regards the contents of the permission letter in its item No. 20, it was pleaded that development charges do not include provision for electricity and water amenity and, therefore, when the U.I.T. mentioned that it would not be its responsibility to carry out the development work. It was only meant the amenity of electricity and water. It stated that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the amount of development charges and penalty.

THE District Forum held that the complainant had not pleaded that the land was not situated within Udaipur Zone and for that reason the opposite party was not entitled to realise development charges. It was stated that under the Conversion Rules of 1981 local authority was competent to realise development charges. It also held that the complainant had deposited the development charges and penalty on 1.1.1990 i.e., before the date the rebate was allowed. Due to this fact, the complainant was not entitled to rebate. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. The appellant did not appear despite notice. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party-respondent and perused the record. We may refer to Rule 10(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 which inter-alia provides that conversion of the use of agricultural land for residential or commercial purposes shall be made in accordance with the conditions laid down in the rules. It is then provided that the applicant shall pay to the Government such conversion charges and penalty as are prescribed under these rules. Admittedly the complainant had deposited the conversion charges and penalty as prescribed under the rules with the authorised officer and it was after the deposit that the order of conversion was passed. It is further provided in the above rules that the applicant shall also pay to the local body concerned the prescribed development charges, peripheral development charges, compounding fees and such other charges as may be prescribed by law or by the local body concerned. It may here be mentioned that so far as peripheral development charges are concerned, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs 1,600/-in this regard with the Authorised Officer before conversion. After conversion the U.I.T. further required him to deposit Rs. 9,600/-as development charges and Rs. 5,981/-as penalty. It is not understandable that when peripheral development charges had already been realised from the complainant, why development charges were realised. Either the place where the land was situated was a peripheral area or an area within the local limit of the local authority. It could not be both. Again it may be mentioned that although the complainant was compelled to pay the development charges and penalty by the U.I.T., Udaipur, yet it is interesting to note that in the permission letter issued by the U.I.T. on 6.2.1990, it was mentioned at item No. 20 that it would not be the responsibility of the Urban Improvement Trust to carry out development work. When the U.I.T. disowned its responsibility to carry out any development work, how could it charge development charges from the complainant. The payment of development charges is in lieu of carrying out the development work. When the U.I.T. disowned its responsibility to carry out the development work, it could not charge development charges from the complainant. The opposite party in its version has only tried to explain as an afterthought that by the above mentioned in item No. 20 of the permission letter, it was only meant to say that it was not the responsibility of the Urban Improvement Trust to provide amenity of electricity and water. Rest of the development work like building of road and nali would be made by the Trust. This version is, as already stated, an afterthought. In the permission letter at item No. 20 the words "development work" have been mentioned and it was not mentioned that only amenity of electricity and water would not be the responsibility of the U.I.T. Clearly in the letter of permission the U.I.T., Udaipur mentioned that the Trust would not be responsible for carrying out development work. The U.I.T. could not, therefore, charge development charges disowning its responsibility to carry out the development work. The complainant was, therefore, entitled to the refund of the development charges and penalty realised from him by the U.I.T.

We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 1.1.1993 and direct the U.I.T. to refund to the complainant the total amount of Rs. 15,581/-realised from him on account of development charges and penalty within two months from the date of this order. If the opposite party respondent failed to refund the said amount within two months, the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount after the expiry of the period of two months and till payment. Appeal allowed.