Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. On a bare perusal of the complaint, this Court finds that in totality, the case is that in relation Khasra No.457 and 458, one Babu Lal preferred an application under Section 90B of the Act of 1956 and the agricultural land was surrendered for conversion and issuance of a fresh patta.

32. The complaint reads that Ramesh Kumar Parihar, Draftsman -cum- Surveyor issue the No-objection Certificate dated 08.01.2004, as the purpose of the conversion was in line with the purpose laid down in the Master Plan. It is noted by this Court that the sanction against Ramesh Kumar Parihar has been declined by the competent authority of the State Government. The Tehsildar, Pratapgarh, at that time, gave a report to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer on 30.08.2003 stating that the land was free to be allotted to the patta-holder and no matter in relation thereto was subjudice in any other litigation, and according to such reports, the conversion of the land was processed, and the conversion charges were duly paid by the land-holders, in accordance with the circulars annexed i.e. dated 22.12.1999, 30.08.2001 and 20.05.2004.

36. On the face of the complaint as alleged and as summarized in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint merely discloses deviation from the circular dated 06.07.2002, whereby the petitioners were required to collect the development charges, but the intention of doing so has not been disclosed in the complaint.

37. Prime role has been attributed in the complaint to Ramesh Kumar Parihar, Draftsman -cum-Surveyor, who has drawn the base line for conversion and issuance of patta by issuing the No-objection Certificate dated 08.01.2004, but it is noted by this Court that the competent authority of the State has declined sanction against Ramesh Kumar Parihar. The State of Rajasthan has failed to point out as to what action has been taken to recover the amount of Rs.15.45 lacs against the due development charges, or for taking adequate steps for cancellation of the pattas, which were granted to the concerned persons. The deviation from the circular is very doubtful, at the threshold, as the circular dated 06.07.2002 only speaks of colonizer and township developer, whereas the present patta-holders were only (40 of 47) [ CRLMP-564/2012] individual private persons having their own land surrendered for conversion and issuance of patta in their own favour.