(1.) These appeals have been filed assailing a common order passed by the learned Single Judge. The detailed facts are stated in the impugned order, since in the case of Amita Nitin Shirgurkar v. The Belgaum Urban Development Authority, Belgaum and Another, 2012 6 KarLJ 553 Hence, it is unnecessary to state the same here again, except where necessary for deciding these appeals. Respondent 1 is the owner of the land in dispute which was reserved under comprehensive development plan approved by the Government of Karnataka on 18-11-1993 and published in the Karnataka State Gazette on 13-11-1994, for the purpose of 'open space'. The land was not acquired within the specified period from the date of publication of GDP. The owner made an application before the planning authority for according permission to utilise the land for residential use. Acting under sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the (for short, 'the Act'), the planning authority permitted the owner of the land to utilise the land for residential purpose. The landowner, thereafter, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land for residential purpose. The application having rejected on 23-12-2008, the landowner filed Appeal No. 134 of 2009 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Appeal was allowed on 19-10-2010 and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to accept the conversion fee and grant order of conversion. The said order was questioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District in W.P. No. 6696 of 2011. The landowner once again having approached the Deputy Commissioner to grant order of conversion and the application having been rejected on 5-11-2011, on the ground that the permission of the State Government is necessary for conversion of the land, as per a Circular dated 6-3-2010, the landowner filed W.P. No. 68630 of 2011. Since both writ petitions pertained to the same land and the parties being common, the learned Single Judge heard and decided both the writ petitions together.
(2.) Sri M.A. Hulyal, learned Advocate appearing for the Belgaum Urban Development Authority contended that after lapse of the designation as per the provision of Section 69(2) of the Act, the change of land is not automatic, in view of the procedure contemplated under Section 14A of the Act and that the landowner should seek change of land use from agricultural to residential use and as such, learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that there is no need for seeking permission of the Planning Authority once again.
(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, contended that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the provisions of Section 14A, if read along with provision of Section 12C and Section 69(2) of the Act harmoniously, leads to the conclusion that the designation attached to the land is lapsed, is contrary to the object of the Act. He contended that, since the land was designated as 'open space' unless and until permission of the State Government is granted, the land will not loose its original character of 'open space'.