STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED HUBLI Vs. HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-B, the Order No. HDUA : 39 VINAYASA : 91/8713, dated 5-2-1992 issued by the Commissioner stating that since the land in question is not converted, the permission sought for residential use cannot be granted urging the following grounds: the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law in view of the fact that, State Government in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976 (in short 'the Act') granted exemption in respect of the land in question on the basis that it is a vacant land as defined under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, in view of the exemption granted under Section 20 of the Act, it must be presumed that it is a converted land from Government authorities again approaching the revenue authorities under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1964 seeking conversion of the land in question does not arises. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-B is without authority of law and same is contrary to the order passed by the State Government at Annexure-A.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. T. S. Ramachandra submits that Government can grant exemption in respect of non-agricultural lands which are included in Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)approved by the Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Admittedly, the land in question was included in the CDP. This important aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the State Government while exercising its power under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner-Society to get conversion order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not arise and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of the case of the petitioner, he places reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1662 of 1989, DD: 17-6-1991, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 1997, DD: 2nd September, 1997. Therefore, he submits that the case on hand is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Basavaprabhu Patil, appearing for the respondent submits that notwithstanding the order passed under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the petitioner-Society is required to obtain conversion order in respect of the land in question under section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. In support of his submission, he places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v Shankara Textiles Mills limited (paragraphs 6 and 7) read thus: "6. Section 95 (2) of the Revenue Act at the relevant time read as follows: 95. Uses of agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricultural land for other purposes.-- (1) XXX XXX XXX. (2) If any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose, he shall apply for permission to the Deputy commissioner who may, subject to the provisions of this section and the rules made under this act, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit. 7. The obvious purpose of this section is to prevent indiscriminate conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and to regulate and control the conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Section 83 of that Act provides for different rates of assessment for agricultural and non-agricultural land. That provision strengthens the presumption that agricultural land is not to be used, as per the holder's sweet will, for non-agricultural purposes. This is also clear from the absence of any provi-sion under that Act requiring permission to convert non-agricultural land into agricultural land. In a country like ours, where the source of livelihood of more than 70 per cent of the population, is agriculture, the restriction placed by the revenue Act is quite understandable. Such provisions and restrictions are found in the Revenue acts of all the States in the country. The provision has, therefore, to be construed as mandatory and given effect to as such".