The right to develop land for residential purposes should be regulated in accordance with the law applicable on the date of submission of applications, and the petitioners were entitled to develop their lands for residential purposes as on the date of submission of their applications.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up together for final disposal. Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.191/1 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, Sy.No.192/3 measuring 27 guntas, Sy.No.192/2 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Kuduvati Village, Nandhi Hobli, Chikakballapura District. Petitioners were permitted to divert the land for residential purpose by virtue of order dtd. 30/4/2012 passed by the competent authority under Sec. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

2. Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.192/1(New No.192/9) measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, Sy.No.191/3 measuring 32 guntas, Sy.No.200 (block 1) measuring 29 guntas, Sy.No.192/5 (block 2) measuring 15 guntas, Sy.No.89 measuring 4 acres 23 guntas, Sy.No.178 measuring 5 acres 22 guntas, Sy.No.179 measuring 6 acres 37 guntas, Sy.No.181/1 measuring 12 acres, Sy.No.181/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, Sy.no.258 measuring 2 acres total 36 acres 11 guntas situated at Kuduvati Village, Nandhi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District.

3. Petitioners were permitted to divert these lands for residential purpose by virtue of order dtd. 5/4/2011 and 13/12/2013 passed by the competent authority under Sec. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4. The petitioners in these writ petitions have submitted applications on 15/7/2019 before respondent No.2 so as to sanction the layout plan for residential purposes in terms of Sec. 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. The said applications were rejected by respondent No.2 stating that the lands in question falls within the agriculture zone in the Proposed Master Plan 2031 and the same is pending consideration for approval before the State Government. Hence, these writ petitions.

5. Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the proposed master plan has not been given effect to, and the petitioners having been permitted to utilize the lands for residential and in the absence of any impediment or prohibition, the applications submitted by the Petitioners requires to be dealt with in terms of existing law. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 502.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in Proposed Master Plan 2031, lands in question falls under agriculture zone and as such, the petitioners' applications cannot be considered for the present.

7. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

8. It is undisputed that the petitioners are permitted to divert the lands in question for residential purpose by virtue of an order passed under Sec. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenues Act, 1964 by the competent authority much prior to proposed master plan- 2031 was prepared. However, the Respondent No.2 has rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners for sanctioning of layout plans for residential purposes stating that the lands fall within the agriculture zone in the Proposed Master Plan 2031.

9. The Apex Court in the Case of T.Vijayalakshmi stated supra, has held as follows:

" 15. The law in this behalf is explicit. 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.

18. It is, thus, now well-settled law that an application for