1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.6175/2014 (LB-RES)

C/W
WRIT PETITION No.17095/2013

IN W.P. No.6175/2014

BETWEEN:

1. SRI H.B. ASHOK

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
AGED 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1226/3
GANESHAKRUPA, 2ND CROSS,
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 004.

2. SRI H.B. RAMAKANTHBHAT,

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
AGED 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.581
B BLOCK, 2ND MAIN,
SRI KANAKADASA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 022.

3. SMT. GEETHA SHANKAR RAO,

D/O LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
AGED 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.407,
5TH B MAIN ROAD,
HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
 2

4. SRI H.B. ARVINDBHAT

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.704-A,
SOMERSET APARTMENTS
NO.18, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

5. SMT. VEENAPUTHIGE,
D/O LATE H.G. BALARAM BHAT,
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.704-A,
SOMERSET APARTMENTS
NO.18, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER SRI H.B. ASHOK,
THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. S.R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEPARTMENT,
VIKASASOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 005.

3. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
NEAR MYSORE COLLEGE MEN'S HOSTEL,
MYSORE, KARNATAKA - 570 005
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

4. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER,

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
 3

JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,

NEAR MYSORE COLLEGE MEN'S HOSTEL,
MYSORE,
KARNATAKA - 570 005. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NITYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R1 & R2;

SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 - SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 31.12.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND 6.1.2014 AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE
R-2 AND ETC.

IN W.P. No.17095/2013

BETWEEN:

1. SRI H.B. ASHOK

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.1226/3
GANESHAKRUPA, 2ND CROSS,
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 004.

2. SRI H.B. RAMAKANTH BHAT,

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAM BHAT,
MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.581
B BLOCK, 2ND MAIN,
SRI KANAKADASA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 022.

3. SMT. GEETHA SHANKAR RAO,

D/O LATE H.G. BALARAMBHAT,
MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.407,
5TH B MAIN ROAD,
HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 043.

4. SRI H.B. ARVINDBHAT

SON OF LATE H.G. BALARAM BHAT,
 4

MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.704-A,

SOMERSET APARTMENTS
NO.18, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

5. SMT. VEENA PUTHIGE,

D/O LATE H.G. BALARAM BHAT,
MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.704-A,
SOMERSET APARTMENTS
NO.18, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER SRI H.B. ASHOK,
THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. S.R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

MYSORE - 570 001. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NITYANANDA K.R., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CONVERSION OF SCHEDULE LANDS
TO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND QUASH THE ORDER OF
R-2 DATED 20.03.2012 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 5

ORDER

In light of the nature of reliefs sought for and the

identity of factual matrix, both the petitions viz.,

W.P. No.6175/2014 and W.P. No.17095/2013 are taken up

for consideration together and disposed off by this common

order.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the

land bearing Survey No.4/P59 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas

situated at Kurubarahalli Village, Mysore Taluk. They

submit that their rights in the property have been derived

by virtue of sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore

in favour of Smt.Saraswathi Bai on 04.11.1971 and

subsequently the property was sold on 31.05.1973 to

Rajasevadhurinasirdar, who is stated to have further sold

the property to Sri Vasu on 25.01.1980 from whom the

father of petitioners, late Sri H.G.Balaram Bhat is said to

have purchased the land through the sale deed on

09.06.1983. It is further stated that the petitioners are the

legal representatives of late Sri H.G.Balaram Bhat.

 6

3. The petitioners state that their property has been

assessed to the land revenue and the name of late

Sri H.G.Balaram Bhat finds a mention in the RTC at Column

No.12 as well as at Column No.9 of the years 1985-1986,

1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 and

further, the names of petitioners finds a mention in Column

No.12 with respect to the year 2010-2011.

4. The petitioners submit that they had sought for

conversion of schedule property from agricultural to

residential purpose and had filed an application dated

28.07.2009 and the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have

rejected such request by order dated 26.08.2009 at the first

instance on the ground that the land was 'B' Kharab land.

5. It is further pointed out that various writ

petitions were instituted including W.P.No.31045/2009

challenging the action of Deputy Commissioner rejecting the

application. The petitioners submit that W.P.No.31045/2009

came to be allowed with certain observations.

 7

6. The petitioners submit that the Deputy

Commissioner by order dated 20.03.2013 has rejected the

representation dated 15.11.2012 regarding the request for

conversion of land and the said order has been challenged

in W.P.No.17095/2013. In the said writ petition, the

petitioners have also sought to challenge the Government

Order dated 24.11.2012 at Annexure-N, whereby the order

of Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 holding that the

lands in Survey No.4 were not Government lands and

holding that the treatment of such lands as 'B' Kharab lands

was unsustainable, had been stayed until further orders.

7. In W.P.No.6175/2014, some of the children of

late H.G. Balaram Bhat have sought for setting aside of the

endorsement dated 31.12.2013 at Annexure-A issued by

the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) whereby

the petitioners' application for approval of layout plan came

to be rejected on the ground that the same could be

considered after an order of conversion is obtained, and

 8

also observing that the application of petitioners would be

kept pending till such order is obtained.

The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions have also

called in question the order of Deputy Commissioner dated

06.01.2014 at Annexure-B, whereby the Deputy

Commissioner has clarified that there is requirement for

obtaining the conversion of land under Section 95(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ['K.L.R. Act' for brevity]

despite the Government Order passed granting exemption

under Section 20 of The Urban Land (Ceiling And

Regulation) Act, 1976.

8. It is further submitted that the endorsement of

Deputy Commissioner dated 06.01.2014 is also impugned

as the relief sought for in the nature of direction to the

MUDA for grant of developmental plan with respect to the

schedule property cannot be considered till the

endorsements dated 31.12.2013 and 06.01.2014 are set

aside.
 9

9. The petitioners submit that the

non-consideration of their application for grant of

developmental plan is primarily on the premise that their

land has not been converted for non-agricultural purpose,

as envisaged under Section 95 of the K.L.R. Act.

10. It is further submitted that amendment to

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by

virtue of which a Proviso has been inserted to Section 95(2)

by way of Act No.11/2018 with effect from 17.03.2018

there is a 'deemed conversion' and the petitioners fulfill the

requirements as mentioned in the Proviso and accordingly it

is submitted that the necessary fine prescribed under

Sub-Section (7) of Section 95 of the K.L.R. Act be directed

to be accepted and consequently, an order is to be passed

directing the Planning Authority to consider the grant of

developmental plan as requested.

11. The petitioners submit that even prior to the

amendment that was introduced, in light of the law laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

 10

State Government Employees' Co-operative Housing

Society Ltd. v. Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

Authority reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1797, as the

petitioner had an order permitting holding of excess vacant

land as per the order passed under Section 20 of the Urban

Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976, in terms of the law

laid down in para-14 of the said judgment, there was no

requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 95 of

the K.L.R. Act. The learned counsel further draws attention

to the order dated 19.03.1983, a copy of which is produced

at Annexure-M, which is an order permitting the petitioners

to hold excess land under the provisions of Urban Land

(Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976.

12. It is further contended by learned counsel for the

petitioners that Proviso to Section 95(2) of the K.L.R. Act is

unambiguous insofar as it states that there will be 'deemed

conversion'. It is submitted that if the land has been

assessed for agriculture and the land use in the Master Plan

is shown for a different purpose in the Master Plan

 11

published under the provisions of The Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act, 1961 and as the petitioners are

seeking diversion for the purpose as mentioned in the

Master Plan, the said Proviso would be applicable and the

consequence of 'deemed conversion' ought to be extended.

13. Learned Government Pleader has filed the

additional statement of objections on 05.04.2021 in

W.P.No.6175/2014 and submits that for the purpose of

'deemed conversion', taking note of amendment to Section

95(2) of the K.L.R. Act, the case of petitioners cannot be

considered insofar as they are seeking for 'deemed

conversion' on the following grounds:-

(a) The land in question is 'B' kharab land as per

Aakarbandh.

(b) The land is not phoded and there is no

demarcation of schedule property.

(c) 11E sketch is mandatory as per the

Government orders passed.

(d) That land is not assessed.

 12

14. It is further pointed out that these aspects have

already been brought to the notice of petitioners as per the

endorsement dated 20.03.2013, which is enclosed as

Annexure-R5 to the statement of objections. It is to be

noted that the said endorsement dated 20.03.2013 is the

same endorsement that has been challenged by the

petitioners in W.P.No.17095/2013.

15. Learned Government Pleader further submits

that the State has challenged the orders passed in Writ

Petition Nos.22658-22662/2015 and connected matters

before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.102/2021

and connected matters, which had affirmed the order

passed in Writ Petition Nos.22658-22662/2015 and

connected matters whereby, this Court had held that the

land in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli was not 'kharab land.'

It is submitted that the validity of such orders are

challenged before the Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos.6269-

6312/2021 [Diary No.7051/2021] and hence this Court may

defer passing the order.

 13

16. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent - MUDA submits that the lis is essentially

the one between the petitioner and Revenue Authorities and

for the purpose of consideration of application of the

petitioners for grant of developmental plan, there has to be

an order for conversion of land under Section 95 of the

K.L.R. Act and if that issue is resolved, MUDA would

consider the application of petitioners for grant of

developmental plan in accordance with the applicable law,

i.e. the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities Act, 1987, The Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act, 1961 and the applicable Zonal Regulations.

17. While adverting in specific to the contention of

petitioners regarding the 'deemed conversion', it is pointed

out that if the Court were to accept the contention of

'deemed conversion,' the procedural requirements relating

to the approval of developmental plan would require

necessary sketch by the competent authority and other

documents as are stipulated in the prescribed application

 14

form to be furnished by the petitioners and on satisfaction

of such requirements, more particularly, with respect to the

sketch identifying the boundary, location and extent of the

property, the application of petitioners would be considered

in accordance with law.

18. It is pointed out that even if 'deemed conversion'

in terms of Section 95 of the K.L.R. Act is granted for the

petitioners while granting the developmental plan, the

petitioners may be required to adhere to all other

requirements as are applicable to a duly converted land

which would take care of all the procedural requirements for

the purpose of grant of developmental plan.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has adverted

to the objections raised by the learned Government Pleader

while pointing out that the status of land as 'Kharab land' is

no more open to be raised again in light of the issue having

been settled unequivocally in the order passed in Writ

Petition Nos.22658-22662/2015 and connected matters

disposed off on 19.06.2020, wherein the Division Bench has

 15

upheld the finding that the land in Survey No.4 of

Kurubarahalli within which the petitioners' lands fall cannot

be considered to be 'B Kharab' lands.

Further, it is pointed out that in the order passed in

W.P.Nos.22658-22662/2015, the learned Single Judge has

passed consequential orders while setting aside the order of

Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015, which had

proceeded on the premise that the lands in Survey No.4 of

Kurubarahalli Village were 'Kharab lands' and had also

directed that wherever revenue entries were made in the

name of 'Government' pursuant to the order of Deputy

Commissioner, the same was set aside and the Revenue

Authority/Municipal Authority were to consider making

appropriate entries in the names of petitioners and

consequential orders, pursuant to setting aside of the

impugned orders in the said writ petitions, could be

considered as per law on the basis of representation of the

petitioners.
 16

20. It is pointed out that the present petitioners were

parties in the aforesaid writ petitions and petitions were

numbered as W.P.No.36304/2015 and W.P. Nos.2830-

2833/2016 and this Court has specifically made an

observation in the said writ petitions referring to the

manner of derivation of title by the petitioners tracing the

title eventually in the Maharaja of Mysore.

21. It is submitted that the said writ petitions were

taken up before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal

No.102/2021 and connected matters, which were disposed

off on 09.02.2021, which has upheld the order and

directions passed by the learned Single Judge.

22. It is submitted that SLP(C) Nos.6269-6312/2021

[Diary No.7051/2021] is filed against Writ Appeal

No.102/2021 in one of the matters and that no interim

order has been passed till date staying the operation of

judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.102/2021 and

connected matters.
 17

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a

memo placing on record the judgment passed in

W.A.Nos.102/2021 and connected matters and certain other

documents including the Property Card issued to the

petitioners as well as the sketch.

24. It is asserted that the Property Card clearly

mentions the measurement, the Field Book of Detail

Mapping, which provides for identification by boundaries

and measurement while contending that the property has

been assessed to land revenue as evident from the RTCs

produced and accordingly has asserted that the objections

of the Government need to be rejected.

25. Heard both sides.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed

out to the amendment made to the Proviso to Section 95(2)

of K.L.R. Act and such amendment made in 2018 has legal

consequences on the relief sought for, which aspect is not in

dispute. However, the applicability of Proviso by virtue of

amendment needs to be looked after taking note of the

 18

material on record after recording a finding as to whether

the property of petitioners has the characteristics as would

satisfy the requirements as per the Proviso.

27. The Proviso to Section 95(2) of K.L.R. Act is

substituted by Act No.11/2018 with effect from 17.03.2018,

reads as follows:

"95. Uses of agricultural land and the

procedure for use of agricultural land for
other purpose.-
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
Provided that in case of any agricultural
land assessed or held for the purpose of
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)."
 19

28. It is clear that that the respondent Authorities

while considering the request of petitioners in

W.P.No.6175/2014 had rejected the application of

petitioners dated 09.10.2013 for grant of developmental

plan on the sole ground that an order of conversion requires

to be furnished and that the endorsement of MUDA dated

31.12.2013 proceeds on such premise. The Deputy

Commissioner also in his endorsement dated 06.01.2014

has clarified that the order of exemption passed under

Section 20 of The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act,

1976 does not do away with the requirement of conversion

of land under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964.

29. A careful perusal of the Proviso to Section 95(2)

of the K.L.R. Act would indicate that for the purpose of

'deemed conversion', the following conditions as required

under the statute are required to be satisfied.

(a) Agricultural land assessed or held for the

purpose of agriculture.
 20

(b) Falling within the Local Planning Area with

respect to which the Master Plan has been
published.

(c) The purpose for which the agricultural land is

sought to be diverted must be in accordance
with the purpose of land use specified in the
Master Plan.

(d) If all of the above are satisfied, the

permission shall be deemed to have been
granted subject to payment of fine
prescribed in Sub-Section (7) of Section
95(2) of the K.L.R. Act.

30. Insofar as the contention of learned Government

Pleader that the land is 'B' kharab land and accordingly the

petitioners are not entitled for any relief, it needs to be

noted that this is a question that cannot be reopened or

re-agitated at this point of time, in light of the order passed

in Writ Petition Nos.22658-22662/2015 and connected

matters directing deletion of the entry of 'B' Kharab in the

revenue records and which order has been upheld in

Writ Appeal No.102/2021 and connected matters, which

 21

order has not been stayed till date. Needless to state that,

if the aspect as concluded by the learned Single Judge while

holding that the land in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village

are not to be treated as Kharab lands is set aside, the legal

consequence as regards the reliefs that are herein extended

to the petitioners would follow. Nothing more needs to be

stated at this juncture, as the reliefs sought for by the

petitioners require to be considered as per the law

prevailing as on date.

31. Insofar as the applicability of Proviso to Section

95(2) of the K.L.R Act is concerned, as regards the

requirement that agricultural land has to be assessed or

held for the purpose of agriculture, the petitioners have

produced copies of the revenue records at Annexures-'B'

and 'B1' in W.P.No.17095/2013.

A perusal of the said documents would indicate that

RTC of Survey No.4/P59 for the year 2010-2011 would

indicate that the extent of 4 acres 20 guntas has been

assessed to land revenue of Rs.15.00. This would take care

 22

of the requirement that agricultural land requires to be

assessed. While there may have been certain changes in

the revenue records after 2010-2011 in light of the

proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, however, in

light of the order passed in W.P.Nos.22658-22662/2015 and

connected petitions, it is clear that the Court while disposing

of the said writ petitions has specifically observed that the

entry of 'B' kharab is to be set aside and the revenue

entries in favour of petitioners to be restored as it was prior

to the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner.

32. Insofar as the requirement that the land must be

falling within the Local Planning Area in the Master Plan duly

published as referred to above, it is to be noticed that the

petitioners have filed a memo dated 12.03.2021 alongwith

the copies of Master Plan and have asserted specifically that

land of the petitioners is a part of Master Plan and this

aspect is not contraverted by the learned counsel appearing

for MUDA.
 23

33. Insofar as further requirement that the proposed

diversion is to be in accordance with the purpose of 'land

use' specified in such Master Plan, though the petitioners in

their application have sought for conversion of 4 acres of

residential use and 20 guntas for commercial purpose as

per the application dated 09.10.2013 at Annexure-N of

W.P.No.6175/2014, a statement is made that they would

limit the proposed diversion to the uses as permitted in the

Master Plan.

34. Suffice it to state that writ petitions that have

been filed in the period of 2013-2015 and taking note that

there have been subsequent Master Plans, the application of

petitioners seeking for developmental plan must be in

accordance with the proposed land use as found in the

prevailing Master Plan.

35. In light of the subsequent developments, i.e.

after filing of the writ petitions viz., amendment to Section

95 of the K.L.R. Act, promulgation of different Master Plans,

in light of the submission of the petitioners that they would

 24

seek benefit of 'deemed conversion', they are at liberty to

file fresh application for approval of developmental plan

which however must be in accordance with the observations

in para-34.

36. A perusal of prayers made in both the writ

petitions would reveal that the prayer sought in

W.P.No.17095/2013 is to set aside the endorsement at

Annexure-A dated 20.03.2013. The contents of said

endorsement would reveal that the application for

conversion has been rejected primarily on the ground that

title to the property in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village,

Mysore Taluk is essentially 'B' Kharab land with respect to

which the litigations were still pending as on 2013, that the

property has not been subjected to durasth, revenue sketch

is unavailable and that the property has not been assessed

to land revenue.

37. As regards W.P.No.6175/2014, the

endorsements dated 31.12.2013 and 06.01.2014 at

Annexures-'A' and 'B' respectively called in question as

 25

noted above is essentially that the land not being

converted, the question of consideration of developmental

plan does not arise.

38. In light of undisputed subsequent events, viz.,

the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.22658-22662/2015

and connected matters and affirmed in Writ Appeal

No.102/2021 and connected matters holding that the land

in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village is not 'Kharab land'

would result in non-availability of the ground that the land

is Kharab land and hence, the endorsement at Annexure-A

dated 20.03.2013 in Writ Petition No.17095/2013 is set

aside.

39. Insofar as the requirement of land to be

converted for consideration of application for grant of

developmental plan which is the subject matter in

W.P.No.6175/2014, in light of the finding that Proviso to

Section 95(2) of the K.L.R. Act introduced by way of

amendment clearly applies and land is deemed to have

been converted, the endorsement at Annexure-A dated

 26

31.12.2013 as well as the order dated 06.01.2014 at

Annexure-B produced in W.P.No.6175/2014 are liable to be

set aside and are accordingly set aside.

40. In light of requisite conditions for applicability of

Proviso to Section 95(2) of K.L.R. Act being fulfilled leading

to the extension of the benefit of 'deemed conversion,' on

the basis of available material the petitioner is entitled for

such benefits as available under law. However, as requisite

formal order is required to be passed after collection of fine

as contemplated under Section 95(7) of the K.L.R. Act, the

Deputy Commissioner after taking note of the discussion

made above would proceed to pass an order.

41. Once the Deputy Commissioner passes necessary

order as regards 'deemed conversion', the necessary fine as

contemplated under Sub-Section (7) of Section 95 of the

K.L.R. Act needs to be collected as per the applicable Rules.

For, the purpose of record, the formal order of 'deemed

conversion' when passed which is more in the nature of a

declaration of grant of legal benefit as envisaged under the

 27

Proviso to Section 95(2) of the K.L.R. Act, the petitioner

may be called upon to adhere to certain procedural

formalities, as may be required for the purpose of

conferring the benefit of 'deemed conversion'.

42. However, taking note of the statutory benefit of

'deemed conversion', any adherence to procedural

requirements as expected of the petitioners is to be so

construed to be subservient to the relief of 'deemed

conversion' and cannot have the effect of taking away the

substantive benefit that is extended to the petitioners by

virtue of applicability of the Proviso to Section 95(2) of the

K.L.R. Act.

43. Insofar as the contention regarding lack of

absence of phodi proceedings, the direction passed in

W.P.No.31045/2009 dated 09.02.2010 needs to be taken

note of wherein para-11 reads as follows:

"11. For all the aforesaid purpose, I quash

the impugned endorsement, dated 26.8.2009
(Annexure-F) and direct the Deputy
Commissioner to have the poding or re-survey
 28

operations conducted and the boundaries of the

land in question demarcated and thereafter take
a decision. Further the Deputy Commissioner is
also directed whether the land in question is akin
to the lands in respect of which the conversion
was granted vide his orders, dated 22.11.2000
(Annexure-L) and 4.6.2009 (Annexure-N). It is
trite that the persons owning similar lands and
making similar applications cannot be treated
dissimilarly."

44. Apart from the aforesaid direction, it needs to be

noted that as regards the petitioners' property there have

been proceedings before the City Survey Authorities as is

evident from the Enquiry Registry maintained by the City

Survey Department, which is enclosed at Annexure-C in

W.P.No.6175/2014.

45. Further, notice is also to be taken of the Property

Card issued to the petitioners by the City Survey

Department, Field Book of Detail Mapping copies of which

are enclosed alongwith the Memo dated 17.04.2021 which

prima facie point out to the property being identified by the

 29

boundaries and measurement by the City Survey

Authorities. Apart from all this, the Master Plan extract,

which is produced alongwith the memo dated 12.03.2021 in

W.P.No.6175/2014 does indicate the demarcation of

petitioners' property and such demarcation present in the

Master Plan could not have been made without documents

from City Survey Authorities providing for such

identification.

46. The submission of learned counsel appearing for

MUDA that the 'deemed conversion' order when passed

needs to be accompanied by a sketch identifying the

boundary and area of the petitioners' lands, is noted. In

light of the submission that for the purpose of obtaining a

developmental plan there has to be adherence to furnishing

of a sketch, it would be appropriate to direct the Deputy

Commissioner that while passing a formal order of 'deemed

conversion', to ensure that the sketch showing the

measurement, boundaries and other requisite details is

enclosed alongwith the order of 'deemed conversion'.

 30

47. Insofar as phodi proceedings are concerned,

taking note of the admitted position that Survey No.4 of

Kurubarahalli Village consists of 1563 acres and to accept

the contention that until phodi proceedings are completed

no order of conversion can be passed, would result in the

property rights of petitioners under Article 300A of the

Constitution of India being in perpetual suspension till the

vast extent of land is subjected to phodi proceedings. All

that could be stated is that the substantial requirement of

identification of property for the purpose of granting an

order of 'deemed conversion' would be sufficient, which

aspect is to be taken note of by the Deputy Commissioner

in an appropriate manner, while noting the observations in

paras-44 and 45.

48. Once the order of 'deemed conversion' is passed

subject to the procedural requirements as may be required

taking note of the observations made above that the

petitioners are entitled for such order to be passed as

noticed above, the approval of such developmental plan by

 31

the Authority is to be made, upon the petitioners filing fresh

applications for developmental plan in the requisite format.

The MUDA upon such application being filed, is to consider

the same taking note of the applicable provisions of the

provisions of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,

1987, The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961

and the applicable Zonal Regulations.

49. The Deputy Commissioner to pass a formal

order as regards 'deemed conversion' in light of the

discussion made hereinabove within a period of eight weeks

from the date of release of this order. Thereafter, MUDA to

consider the application of petitioners within a period of

twelve weeks from the date of applications for approval

being submitted by the petitioners in terms of the

observations made above.

These petitions are accordingly allowed.

Sd/-
JUDGE
VGR