The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of power under Section 95 of the Revenue Act is subject to the provisions of the Planning Act, and granting permission for conversion must conform to the law in force regarding the erection of buildings.

DODDAKALE GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) ORDER dated 15-11-1982 of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, declining to accord permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'revenue Act') has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as per impugned order with a further direction to accord sanction for conversion imposing such conditions as are permissible under law.

( 2 ) RELIEF sought for conversion of S. No. 16 situate at Uttarahalli Village, Bangalore South taluk, has been refused by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore solely on the ground 'land in question lies' in rural tract (agricultural zone) where no developments are permissible as per the approved Outline Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'odp' of Bangalore.

( 3 ) APPELLATE Tribunal has held that there is no justification to refuse permission when adjoining lands such as S. Nos. 15, 17 and 18 are permitted to be used as non-agricultural land and ground on which permission is refused will not fall within the ambit of Section 95 of Revenue Act. It is stated thus :" we would like to once again observe that such a ground finds no place in the Scheme of Section 95 of the Act, It is nowhere laid down in the said Section that the conversion applied for shall be permitted only it accords with the development plans of the local body. It is open to the competent authority to attach conditions, while permitting the conversion applied for, to the effect that the provisions, if any, of any law in force relating to Town and Country Planning Act or any rules regulating the construction of buildings, shall be adhere to. If the Government at the policy level want that Special Provisions should be brought in force for an orderly development of any particular urban area, it would be for them to amend the said provisions of the Act so as to rule out conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purpose wherever such conversion clashes with the master plans or zoning regulations of the local body. So long as the said provisions are not amended, there is scope whatsoever for the competent authority to refuse permission for conversion to non-agricultural purposes just because such developments are not permissible as per the master plan drawn up by the local body. "

( 4 ) SRI S. Lakshminarayana, Learned High Court Government pleader, relying on certain provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'planning Act') contended that impugned order is clearly illegal and order made without reference to provisions of Ceiling Act and Planning Act suffer from errors apparent on the face of record. It is contended inter alia that no permission can be granted for conversion of agricultural land lying within planning area/master plan and/or within rural tract (agricultural zone) and even otherwise, Tribunal could have, at best, remitted matter to Deputy Commissioner for disposal afresh in accordance with law without directing to accord sanction. Respondents tried to sustain impugned order contending that consideration of provisions of Acts referred to above are alien for the purpose of grant of relief under Section 95 of Revenue Act. In fact, survey number is not included in Green Belt Area. Hence direction given to accord sanction is well within its jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THUS, controversy is as to whether provisions of Ceiling Act and Planning Act have any bearing on the grant of permission for conversion) if so, what extent ?

( 6 ) AS matters of this type are coming up for admission more in number and as there is scope for exercise of arbitrary power granting conversion in one case and denying relief to the other, I am constrained to deal with the matter a little more detail explaining various provisions of Acts governing the issue.

( 7 ) BRIEF reference to salient provisions of various Acts is necessary to resolve this controversy. 'urb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document