STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, HUBLI Vs. THE 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.) AGAIN , Mr. Patil draws my attention to the amendment to Section 95 of the Act by Act No. 2 of 1991, dated 5 -2 -1991 incorporating the following proviso: "Provided that, Deputy Commissioner shall not refuse permission for diversion of such land included in the Outline Development Plan or the Comprehensive -Development Plan published under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), if such diversion is in accordance with the purpose of land use specified in respect of the land in such a plan".