KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES HOUSEBUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the demand relating to conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act 1964') is without authority of law and the government has no jurisdiction to demand the same and also for other reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioners are the societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners requested the State Government to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land for their benefit for the purpose of providing residential sites to its members. The State government before initiating the proceedings called upon the societies to pay certain amount towards cost of acquisition which includes conversion fine payable under the provisions of the Act, 1964. In addition the societies are also required to pay certain amount towards establishment charges and audit charges. In these petitions the petitioners challenged the demand made by the State Government towards cost of acquisition relating to conversion fine, establishment charges and audit charges. The petitioners at the time of argument confined their arguments only towards conversion fine and they have not pressed insofar as the payment towards establishment charges and audit charges, obviously because the Government had to spend certain amount towards establishment and audit in order to complete the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) SRI. T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has no authority to demand payment towards conversion fine relying upon Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act 1961' ). It is in the submission of Sri T. S. Ramachandra, that the land which is proposed for acquisition is earmarked for a residential purpose in the C. D. P. published under the Act 1961 and that the same shall not be used for any other purpose other than residential purpose except with the written permission of the planning authority. In view of this, it is contended that as the lands which were the subject matter of the notifications issued under the LA Act, are all earmarked or reserved for residential purpose in the C. D. P. and the said land cannot be used for any purpose other than the residential purpose; therefore, the question of payment of conversion fine for the purpose of using the land for non-agricultural purpose under section 95 of the Act 1964 does not arise and therefore the demand made by the State Government calling upon the petitioner to pay the conversion fine towards cost of acquisition is without authority of law. In support of this contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in Special Deputy commissioner v Narayanappa, wherein it is held as follows.