Chirag Pitti vs Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 13893 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 13893 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chirag Pitti vs Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur ... on 6 October, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:43728]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6874/2008

Rajeev Gehlot S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Gehlot, age about 40
years B/C Mali, R/o Umed Hospital Road, Jodhpur through power
of attorney holder Mahendra Singh Gehlot S/o Dr. Govind Singh,
R/o 980, Umed Hospital Road, Jodhpur.
                                                      ----Petitioner
                                Versus
The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur through its Secretary.
                                                    ----Respondent
                           Connected With
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9311/2008
Madan Lal S/o Purshottam Das, aged about 39 years, R/o
16-A/2, Kazri Road (Jodhpur)
                                                      ----Petitioner
                                Versus
The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur through its Commissioner.
                                                    ----Respondent
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 288/2009
Chirag Pitti S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Pitti, aged about 26 years, B/C
Agarwal, R/o 61, "Vikas", 31 Pedder Road, Mumbai 400 026
(Maharashtra).
                                                      ----Petitioner
                                Versus
The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur through its Secretary.
                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vasudev Gaur for
                                Mr. O.P. Mehta
For Respondent(s)         :     None present



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

06/10/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical writ

petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2109/2009;

Suresh Kumar Mutha Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur &

Anr. have already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 06:33:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43728] (2 of 3) [CW-6874/2008]

Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2022 whereby the writ petitions

were dismissed.

2. In Suresh Kumar Mutha (supra), the Court observed and

held as under:

"9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above

10. This Court observes that the short controversy at hand is whether the land in question needs to be converted (change of land use), upon deposition of requisite fees, for the purpose of the construction permission, as sought by the petitioner.

11. This Court further observes that as per the amended provision of Section 173-A of the Act of 1959, the land in question does in fact needs to be converted, after deposition of the requisite fees, with the concerned authority for obtaining the permission so sought by the petitioner to construct roads on the land in question.

12. This Court also observes the judgment rendered in Municipal Corporation Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Sachdeva (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the judgment rendered in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Pareshar Soni (supra) is a bad law, and the provision of law as laid down in Section 173-A as amended in September 1999 would apply to 'free hold' property, and therefore, the land so classified would also require the necessary conversion, after deposition of the requisite conversion fees, if sought to be used for a commercial purposes.

13. This Court further observes that the law on the issue raised in the present petitions has already been crystallized in the provision of law i.e. Section 173-A of the Act of 1959 as amended in September 1999, and the same has also

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 06:33:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43728] (3 of 3) [CW-6874/2008]

been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Sachdeva (supra). This Court thus, finds that the impugned notice issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation suffers from no legal infirmity and was in fact issued in accordance with law, and hence, the same does not require any interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction.