R.P. BRICKS INDUSTRIES (M/S) V. STATE & ORS.

2013(4) WLC 666

26th April 2013

Bench : Hon’ble Dr. Vineet Kothari

Legal Issues- Whether the revenue department of the state government can demand conversion
charges for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes which are situated in the colony
area covered under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 or other than colony area,
the khatedari agricultural land, covered by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956- Mining of
brick earth and manufacturing bricks in brick kilns-
(Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 90-A, 102; Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, read
with Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956)
Facts-
The petitioners in the given case had set up brick kilns on their respective agricultural lands and
some of the brick kilns fell in colony areas on the agricultural land allotted to the petitioner under
the Colonization Act, 1954, which area included command land or uncommand land and the
petitioners had set up their brick kilns on such agricultural lands, after obtaining mining leases
from the mining department for excavation of brick earth, a minor mineral. The aggrieved
petitioners filed writ petitions against the show cause notices issued by the revenue authorities
like Addl.Collector or Tehsildar, Sriganganagar and Hanumangarh, where in the petitioner were
called upon by the authority to show cause and demanded the conversion charges for use of such
agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956.
Arguments Advanced by Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat (Counsel for Revenue Department,
State of Rajasthan)
It was submitted by Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat that the demand for conversion charges from the
petitioners is completely valid, further the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were directed
against the show cause notices issued by the revenue authorities and therefore the writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely against the show cause notices as no patent and
inherent lack of jurisdiction has been alleged against the revenue authorities. It was argued by
Mr.Bhandawat that there were mixed questions of facts and law and there was no proper factual
foundation established by the petitioner and hence the question of levy of conversion charges
cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and must be dismissed as premature.
It was contended that Condition Nos 19 and 20 of The Rajasthan Colonization Project Area
Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 were inserted in the year 1988 for private khatedari lands,
which were used for setting up of brick kilns. These conditions were never challenged nor they
were declared ultra vires by this court. In Supreme Court’s case of State of Rajasthan v. Seator
Kiln Company1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that conditions no. 19 and 20 inserted in 1966
rules were not subject matter of judicial review and could not be declared to be bad in law and
only conditions no. 6,7,9,10,11 and 12 of 1966 conditions were ultra vires.
It was submitted that Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and Minor Mineral Concession rules
operate in different fields and the grant of mining leases for excavation of minor mineral like
brick earth could not prohibit or exclude the levy of conversion charges for such change of user
of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in the form of mining of brick earth and there
manufacturing thereof. Thus, the petitioners were liable to pay the conversion charges to the
revenue department of the state government for industrial and commercial use of agricultural
land.
Judgment-
The present batch of writ petition deserved a dismissal. The demand of conversion charges for
use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes by way of mining of brick earth and
manufacturing bricks in the brick kilns established on agricultural land whether in the colony
area or other khatedari agricultural land demand notices issued by authorities of Revenue
Department are justified. It was held by the court that once the land was demarcated for mining
purposes, it should deem to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes and the contention
of petitioner that the lease charges having been paid for issuance of mining lease, now
conversion charges cannot be demanded by the Revenue authorities was fallacious . The grant of
mining leases under MMCR is only a right to excavate the minor mineral i.e brick earth and
nothing beyond that is either envisaged under MMCR not the mining authorities could grant it.
The court was of the opinion that the very grant of mining lease is the basis for initiation of

1
(2002) 10 SCC 253.
proceedings by the revenue authorities for demanding conversion charges for putting agricultural
land into use for non-agricultural purposes.