Point of law : Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play

ORDER :

The petitioner/Karnataka Rajya Mandavya Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha calls in question a communication dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Mandya Urban Development Authority (‘MUDA’ for short) turning down the application of the petitioner for approval of the layout plan on the score that the lands where the layout is sought to be formed will have to undergo a change of land use in terms of Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘the KTCP Act’ for short) and proceedings in terms of Section 14A of the KTCP Act will have to be initiated by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner is a House Building Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioner seeking to form a layout in several survey numbers of Kyathangere village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District applied for permission to purchase agricultural lands under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the Land Reforms Act’ for short). Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner to the Government, MUDA issued an endorsement granting approval for purchase of lands in the said survey numbers. After the aforesaid procedure, the 1st respondent issued a Notification on 27-04-2012 granting approval for purchase of said lands.

3. In furtherance of the approval and permission granted by the State, the petitioner purchased lands in several survey numbers in the aforesaid village on 14-05-2012 from the respective land owners. The survey numbers are described in the petition and would be hereinafter referred to as the 'subject lands'. Pursuant to the said purchase of the subject lands, the petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya seeking conversion of lands from agriculture to nonagricultural purposes. The said representation of the petitioner for such conversion was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the 2nd respondent/MUDA by his letter dated 20-02-2013 seeking no objection from the hands of MUDA. MUDA in reply to the said communication informs the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District that the lands are coming under the proposed Development of formation of a housing layout and, therefore, permission cannot be granted. Pursuant to the said communication of MUDA, an endorsement is issued by the Deputy Commissioner keeping the application of the petitioner for conversion pending on the ground that lands would come within the proposed development activity of the Planning Auth

ority.

4. This is called in question by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.15976 of 2017. This Court by its order dated 07-09-2017 quashed the endorsement and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion. It is thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner granted conversion of lands from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes by an Official Memorandum dated 03-02-2018. On the strength of such conversion the petitioner also obtains a No objection from the hands of the Grama Panchayat for the development of the said lands, and submits a layout plan for approval to the planning authority. MUDA by communication dated 13.09.2019 informs the petitioner that part of the subject land is still under the Master Plan and therefore, a change of land use in terms of Section 14A of the KTCP Act will have to be made by the petitioner initiating such process, unless that is done the approval for layout cannot be considered. It is calling in question the said communication dated 13-09-2019 the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri B.M. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.R. Nithyananda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri B.M. Arun would vehemently argue and contend t