Karnataka High Court
Nageshrao vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 August, 2022
Author: N.S. Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S. Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.53053/2018 (KLR-CON)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.52129/2019
WRIT PETITION No.3039/2020
WRIT PETITION No.3099/2020
WRIT PETITION No.3100/2020
IN WRIT PETITION NO.53053/2018
BETWEEN:
NAGESHRAO
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE: 83 YEARS
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYURU-570 001.
2
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD
MYSURU-570 005
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE INTIMATION DTD: 5.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT COPY AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H DISPOSING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING CONVERSION BY HOLDING
THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.52129/2019
BETWEEN:
NAGESH RAO
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE 84 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
3
MYSORE-560 057
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 05.09.2018 IN FILE ISSUED BY THE
R1, THE COPY AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-J REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION, BY HOLDING THE
SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3039/2020
BETWEEN:
D SURESH
S/O. LATE K. DORESWAMY,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1042,
"GANGABHI NILAYA",
S.J.H. MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA,
MYSORE-570 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-560 057.
... RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 07.02.2018 ISSUED BY R1,
CERTIFIED COPY AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N REJECTING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION AND TO
HOLD THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3099/2020
BETWEEN:
K.NARAYANA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGE: 78 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, J.L.B. ROAD
MYSURU-570 005
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HOLD
THAT LAND BEARING SY NO. 294/3 (OLD SY.NO.294/2)
MEASURING 3 ACRES 18 GUNTAS IN KADAKOLA VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT IS
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED U/S 95(5) OF
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964 FOR RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSE AND ETC.
5
IN WRIT PETITION No.3100/2020
BETWEEN:
NAGESHARAO
S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE: 84 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-560 057
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 05.09.2018 ISSUED BY R-1
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K REJECTING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION AND TO
HOLD THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
6
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners in this case are seeking for quashing of the endorsements issued by the Deputy Commissioner by which the Deputy Commissioner has refused their request for permitting them to use their agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes and for a consequential direction to issue a Conversion Certificate.
2. The fact that the petitioners filed applications seeking for permission to use their agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes as envisaged under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') on 22.08.2017, 18.08.2017 and 31.01.2018 is not dispute.
3. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner failed to communicate his decision of either grant or refusal of permission, within four months as contemplated under Section 95(5) of the Act. As a consequence, it is the case of the petitioners that the 7 permission that they had applied for is deemed to have been granted.
4. For the sake of clarity, the dates on which the petitioners made the applications for permission and the date on which the four months period expired and the date on which the Deputy Commissioner intimated the refusal of permission, are noted in the tabular column:
Date on which Date on Writ Deputy Date of which 120 Petition Commissioner application days Numbers intimated the expired refusal, if any 53053 and 31.01.2018 31.05.2018 10.09.2018 53055/2020 No rejection order 52129/2019 22.07.2017 19.11.2017 passed Rejection order dated 07.02.2018 3039/2020 18.08.2017 18.12.2017 but not communicated Rejection order dated 05.09.2018 3100/2020 31.01.2018 30.04.2018 but not communicated No rejection order 3099/2019 22.07.2017 19.11.2017 passed
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with 8 the power to either grant or refuse permission to use the lands which are assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture to be diverted for any other purposes under Section 95(2) of the Act. He states that the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to either grant or refuse permission within four months and if he does not intimate his decision to the applicant, Section 95(5) of the Act declares that the permission that had been applied for is deemed to have been granted. It is his contention that since, admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner did not intimate any decision that he took regarding the permission sought within four months, the permission that the petitioners had applied for, in the eye of law, is deemed to have been granted.
6. He submitted that the subsequent orders passed, refusing the permission would have absolutely no consequence and the same would have to be ignored. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had lost all jurisdiction to pass any order on the application of the 9 petitioners on the expiry of four months and any order that he had passed after the expiry of four months was void ab-initio.
7. He submitted that the petitioners had also in fact deposited a conversion fine and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner needed to be directed to issue formal orders granting permission as contemplated under Section 95(5) of the Act.
8. He also submitted that the contention of the Planning Authority that the Deputy Commissioner was bound to refuse permission if the purpose stated by the petitioners was contrary to the purpose mentioned in the Master Plan cannot be accepted. He submitted that a reading of Section 95(2) of the Act would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner was required to grant permission only if the purpose for which diversion is sought is in conformity with the purpose earmarked in the Master Plan.
10
9. He submitted that the mere granting permission by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Act would not ipso facto allow the applicants to put the land to use for the purpose for which they had applied. He submitted that, if as a matter of fact, the purpose sought for diversion of the land was for a purpose that was different from the purpose earmarked in the Master Plan, the applicants who had obtained permission or who had however secured deemed permission under Section 95 of the Act, would still nevertheless have to seek for a change of land use as contemplated under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short "KTCP ACT").
10. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction, in law, to refuse the permission, even if the purpose sought for by the applicant was different than the purpose specified in the Master Plan and that is because after obtaining permission under Section 95 of the Act, it was open for the applicant to 11 seek for a change of land use under the provisions of the KTCP Act. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner cannot by the power conferred under him under Section 95 of the Act pre-empt the right of the applicants to seek for a change of land use under the provisions of the KTCP Act.
11. He submitted that under the proviso to Section 14(2) of the KTCP Act, the applicants could not seek for a change of land use unless permission had been granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Act and it was therefore essential that the Deputy Commissioner passed an order of conversion as sought for by the applicants. He submitted that in view of the matter that no decision was taken and communicated to the petitioners within four months, the lands of the petitioners were deemed to have been granted as sought by the petitioners.
12. Sri.T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) contended 12 that the Deputy Commissioner did not possess the power to reject the permission sought for the applicants if the purpose for which permission was sought was different from the purpose specified in the Master Plan. He submitted that merely because no decision had been taken within four months, the petitioners would not be entitled to a deemed permission, at least in cases in which the permission sought was for the purpose contrary to the purpose specified in the Master Plan. He submitted that in cases where the permission was sought in respect of the lands was contrary to the purpose specified in the Master Plan, the deeming Clause would be inapplicable.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the contentions urged by Sri.T.P.Vivekananda.
14. Reliance was also placed on the decisions rendered in (i) M/s.Baba Developers Pvt. Ltd., & others vs. Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority and Another - ILR 2011 Kar 13 1743 (ii) Sri.H.B.Ashok and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - W.P. No.6715/2014 and (iii) Karnataka Rajya Mandavya Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Mandya vs. State of Karnataka and others 2022 (1) AKR 315.
15. Though the right to own property is not a fundamental right, the right to use one's own land would be a right, which cannot be taken away except as provided in law. The right to enjoy one's property and put it to beneficial use cannot be denied. This would however be subject to the law regulating the use of land and this law would essentially be designed to ensure orderly development and prevent infringement of public or private rights. Viewed from this context, it is clear that a citizen has a right to use his property for such purposes as would be beneficial to him, subject to compliance of the laws relating to land use.
16. Land used for the purposes of agriculture is assessed to land revenue and this assessment is based 14 on several factors such as fertility of the soil, source of water, etc. Historically, the revenue from agricultural lands was one of the main sources of revenue for the State and elaborate laws were framed to ensure that the lands are assessed and revenue realized from them is put to public use. Detailed provisions were made for determining and collecting the land revenue.
17. In the erstwhile state of Mysore, all lands were regulated by the Land Revenue Code of the year 1888. Regulation 46 of the Code declared that all lands, whether used for agricultural purposes or other purposes were liable to payment of land revenue unless they were specifically exempted.
18. Chapter VI of the Code provided for the occupation of unalienated land. A written permission to take up unoccupied land was a must and if a person occupied any land unauthorisedly, he was obliged to pay the assessment payable and was also liable for summary eviction. The Deputy Commissioner was entitled to 15 require the payment of a certain price for the occupancy or even auction the same with the imposition of certain conditions.
19. In this Chapter, Regulation 63 stipulated the uses to which the occupant of the agricultural land could be used and the regulation permitted the lands to be used for erecting farm houses and dwelling houses, constructing wells and tanks or making improvements for the better cultivation of the lands.
20. Regulation 94 provided for the Deputy Commissioner to summarily evict the person who had appropriated the agricultural land for any other purpose without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner and in addition also impose a new assessment and a fine. Thus, the previous law mandated the occupant who had been permitted to occupy the land for carrying out agricultural activities to obtain the permission of the Deputy Commissioner before using it for any other purpose.
16
21. However, on the repeal of the Code and enactment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, a provision was made by means of Section 95, requiring any occupant of land assessed to land revenue or land held for agricultural purposes to obtain the permission of the Deputy Commissioner for diverting the land to be used for any other purpose.
22. Section 95 of the Act relates to the uses of agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricultural land for other purposes. Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Act states that an occupant of the land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled to erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use subject to the condition that the farm Building or farm House so erected shall not be more than ten percent of his holding. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Act permits agricultural land to be used without the 17 necessity of taking any permission from the Deputy Commissioner if it is to erect a building, construct a well, or make any other improvements for better cultivation of the land.
23. However, 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, then he is required to apply for the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to either grant permission on such conditions as he may think fit or refuse permission. The said sub-section also makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the occupant would still be required to apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner.
24. In other words, if under any other provision of law, it is permissible for an occupant who holds an agricultural land to put it into non-agricultural use, even 18 then, he is obliged to seek permission under Section 95(2) of the Act.
25. Section 95(2) of the Act, prior to its amendment by Act 11 of 2018, contained a first proviso, which reads as under:
"Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not refuse permission for diversion of such land included in the Master 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 plan;"
26. As could be seen from the said proviso, if the land for which permission was sought had been included in the Master Plan, published under the KTCP Act and if the diversion sought was in accordance with the purpose of land use specified in respect of that land in the Master Plan, there would be a complete bar on the Deputy Commissioner to refuse the permission. 19
27. In other words, if the land for which permission was sought for diversion for a particular purpose, was also shown to have the same purpose in the Master Plan, then the Deputy Commissioner could not refuse the permission and was bound to grant permission. This proviso creates an exception insofar as it relates to the refusal of the permission.
28. In other words, if the condition stipulated in the proviso is applicable, the power of the Deputy Commissioner to refuse the permission is statutorily taken away.
29. Since the petitioners herein had made applications prior to amendment Act No.11 of 2018, it is obvious that it is this proviso that would be applicable. However, an argument was sought to be advanced that this proviso was substituted by Act No.11 of 2018 and this proviso reads as under:
"Provided that in case of any agricultural land assessed or held for the purpose of 20 agriculture, falling within the Local Planning Area for which the Master Plan has been duly published under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) and such land and such diversion is in accordance with the purpose of land use specified in such Master plan. The permission therefore shall be deemed to have been granted subject to payment of fine prescribed under sub-section (7).
(Substituted by Act 11 of 2018 w.e.f.
17.03.2018.)"
30. As could be seen from the substituted
proviso, the Legislature has deviated from the earlier position and instead of there being a curtailment on the power of the Deputy Commissioner to refuse the permission, the substituted proviso positively states that the permission shall be deemed to have been granted if the land, for which permission to divert is sought for, falls within the Local Planning Area for which a Master Plan has been duly published under the KTCP Act and such land diversion is in accordance with the purpose for 21 which the land use specified in the Master Plan, the permission is deemed to have been granted.
31. Thus, as against the earlier provision of barring the Deputy Commissioner from refusing permission, the amended law grants a deemed permission for diversion of agricultural land, if it falls within the Local Planning Area and a Master Plan is published in which the land use is specified and the purpose for which diversion is sought for are the same.
32. Sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Act categorically states that if the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-section (2) within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. On a plain reading of the provision, it is quite clear that the law intends that if the Deputy Commissioner does not take any decision or takes a decision but does not intimate the same to the applicant, 22 a legal fiction is created to the effect that the permission is deemed to have been granted.
33. Obviously, this provision is made to discourage the Deputy Commissioners to sit on the applications endlessly and thereby deprive an occupant from putting his land to the use which benefits him the most.
34. If the intent of the law is to grant a deemed permission due to inaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, that deemed permission that an applicant secures from the operation of law, cannot be defeated by an order being passed by the Deputy Commissioner after the expiry of four months stipulated under Section 95(5) of the Act.
35. If this argument were to be accepted, it would nullify the deemed permission that an applicant is entitled to get under Section 95(5) of the Act. This argument therefore cannot be accepted. 23
36. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that this deemed permission would apply only if the lands for which the diversion is sought for a particular purpose has the very same purpose specified in the Master Plan, cannot also be accepted.
37. A permission obtained to use an agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose would not by itself entitle the occupant to put the land to the use for which the permission is accorded if there is an intervening legislation that mandates the obtaining of separate permission.
38. In other words, even if permission is granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2) of the Act, if the applicant is still required to obtain some other permission under some other statute, the occupant cannot use this order of conversion to use the land and thereby bypass the requirement of obtaining the permission as required under another statute. 24
39. Thus, even if the Deputy Commissioner were to grant permission under Section 95(2) of the Act, if the land, as in the instant case, is included in the Master Plan and the purpose is contrary to the purpose for which the Deputy Commissioner has accorded permission, the occupant still necessarily has to approach the Planning Authority for change of land use. Merely because the land use specified in the Master Plan is different than the purpose for which the applicant is seeking for permission, the Deputy Commissioner cannot use that as a reason to deny permission. The argument of the learned counsel is therefore rejected.
40. It is also pertinent to state here that to seek a change of land use under Section 14 of the KTCP Act, by virtue of the second proviso to Section 14(2), obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is a must. This proviso thereby indicates that the power to grant permission under the provisions of the Karnataka Land 25 Revenue Act is distinct from the requirement of securing the change of land use under the KTCP Act. In this view of the matter, the purpose, even if contrary to the one specified in the Master Plan, the Deputy Commissioner is still bound to consider the application and pass an order on its merits.
41. The difference in purpose, as specified in the Master Plan and the purpose sought for by the applicant, cannot be a ground for the Deputy Commissioner to deny the permission. The Deputy Commissioner can deny the permission only if he is so empowered under other provisions of Section 95 of the Act. In any view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner does not possess the power to deny permission merely because the use specified in the Master Plan and the purpose for which the application has been made are different.
42. It has to be stated here that if on obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, the applicants were to approach the Planning Authority for a 26 change of land use and the Planning Authority refused such permission for the change of land use, obviously, that person cannot use the land contrary to the purpose specified in the Master Plan and the permission that he had obtained from the Deputy Commissioner would be a superfluous permission.
43. I am therefore of the view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the MUDA and the Additional Government Advocate does not merit acceptance and the same is rejected.
44. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision rendered in M/s.Baba Developers Pvt. Ltd., & others vs. Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority and Another - ILR 2011 Kar 1743, cannot also be of any avail because even in the said decision, in paragraph 9, it is stated that merely because conversion orders are issued by the revenue authorities under Section 95 of the Act, the applicants cannot claim that the Planning Authority should permit 27 them to form the layout. This decision reinforces the legal position that the grant of permission under Section 95 of the Act does not co-relate to the requirement of obtaining permission under the Planning Authority Act.
45. The only difference to this legal position would be when the permission sought for and the purpose which is specified in the Master Plan are one and the same, in which case, the Deputy Commissioner is debarred from refusing the permission under Section 95 of the Act.
46. The other decision relied upon in Sri.H.B.Ashok and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - Writ Petition No.6175/2014 does not in any way support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and all that the decision says is that four conditions specified under Section 95(2) of the Act are to be available for the benefit of a deemed conversion.28
47. The other decision relied upon in Karnataka Rajya Mandavya Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Mandya vs. State of Karnataka and others - 2022 (1) AKR 315 would also be inapplicable to the present case because in that case, the Court was considering the validity of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner who had refused permission under Section 95 of the Act based on the recommendation of MUDA, which had requested the Deputy Commissioner to refuse permission as the lands were coming under the proposed development of the formation of a housing layout.
48. As a result of the discussion above, the prayer sought for in the petitions by the petitioners are required to be granted.
49. The permissions sought by the petitioners under Section 95(2) of the Act are deemed to have been granted. The Deputy Commissioner shall issue the petitioners, orders of conversion after verifying whether 29 the petitioners have deposited the requisite conversion fine.
50. If there is any shortfall in the conversion fine, the Deputy Commissioner shall call upon the petitioners to pay the same and on deposit of the same, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue orders of conversion.
51. It is however made clear that this deemed order of conversion will not by itself entitle the petitioners to use the lands for which they had sought for permission and the petitioners would still have to seek the necessary approvals for use of the lands.
52. If the lands are situate within the Master Plan, as contended by MUDA, the petitioners would still necessarily have to approach MUDA for seeking requisite approvals under the KTCP act for change of land use. It is also open for the petitioners to seek for a change of land use, if it is so necessary.30
53. If such applications for change of land use are made by the petitioners, MUDA shall consider the same in accordance with law, by taking into consideration that the requirement of obtaining conversion under Section 95 of the Act that is required for grant of change of land use has been obtained under this order.
54. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE RK CT: AN