IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated: This the 25th day of June, 1997

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. R. P. SETHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. BANNURMATH

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1606 - 1607 C/W 138 - 141 / 1997.

I. W. A . Nos . 1606 - 07 / 97.

BETWEEN:

The State Government Employee's Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Vidyanagar, Hubli, Dharwad District,

By its Secretary. ……………….. APPELLANT.
[ By Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, Advocate ]

II. W.A.Nos. 138 - 141 / 97.

1] The Karnataka State Judicial

Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., High Court Building, Bangalore - 1,
By its Secretary, N. Lingaiah,
S/o Lingaiah, Bangalore - 1.

2] The Bank Officers and Officials House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,
by its secretary, A. S. Prakash,
S/o. A. P. Suryakantharajaiah, 29 Years, No. 10, Baba Nivas, I st Main Road,
Seshadripuram, Bangalore -20.

3] Poornapragna House Building Co-op Society Ltd., No. 77/6, Puttanna Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 4,
By its Secretary.

4] M.E.I. Employees House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,
by its Secretary, Mohanram, S/o T. D. B. Naidu
39 Years, MEI Ltd.,
P.B.No. 2221, Tumkur Road,
Bangalore -2. ………………….. APPELLANTS.

[ By Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, Advocate ]

AND:

1] The State of Karnataka, by the Revenue Commissioner and
secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
M. S. Building , Bangalore - 1.

2] The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle, Bangalore - 560 001.

3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Podium Block,
Second Floor, Visveswaraiah Center, Bangalore - 560 001.

4] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, III Floor, T. V. Tower,
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore - 560 001. ………… RESPONDENTS.

These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 15-01-1997 in W. P. Nos. 926 & 929/92 and 11-11-1996 in W. P. Nos. 2382 / 90 , 7987/ 90, 7787/90 and 13308/90 in W. A. Nos. 1606 to 1607/97 and 138 -141/97 respectively.

These writ appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1] We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2] No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the action of the respondent by which they had demanded conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The order of the learned singly Judge is based upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DOULATRAJ - vs- THE STATE OFKARNATAKA & OTHERS [ W. P NO. 35179 OF 1992 decided on 21-08-1996 ]

3] The learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the land owned by the appellants - societies was an urban land within the meaning of the Urban land [ Ceiling and Regulation ] Act, 1976; the respondents were not entitled to demand the conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4] We do not agree with the submission is as much as the definition of the Urban Land as given in the Urban Land [ Ceiling and Regulation ] Act 1976 cannot be deemed to be the definition of the "land" under the karnataka Land Revenue Ace particularly when the action is initiated in terms of Section 95 read with Rule 107 of the Rules framed under the karnataka land Revenue Act. It may not be out of place to mention that in-fact, the appellants societies, had entered into an agreement with the respondents in pursuance of section 41 of the karnataka Land Acquisition Act agreeing to pay the costs of acquisition like the and value, additional market value, solatium, malki value and conversion fine at the rates specified therein . [ 026.02 Agreement.Govt. & Society ] [ 003.05 KPC ] [ 003.01 Agremt. SC HMT ] [ 003.07 SreenivasaHBCS ] [ 004.07 fraud.SC Jment ]

5] The learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as the land was acquired for residential purposes, it could not be made subject to the provisions of the karnataka Land Revenue Act requiring the appellants-societies to pay the conversion fine. It is not disputed that the land in question is described as agriculture land in the revenue record and the mere acquisition of the land for the residential purposes would not change its nature unless it is actually put to such use.

6] There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge requiring our interference. No merit. Dismissed.

Sd/-CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- Judge