KARNATAKA LAND DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION R REP Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka Land Developers Association (R) and its members have approached this Court challenging the notifications dated 14. 07. 2006 vide Annexures-A and B and 15. 07. 2006 vide annexure-C issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development authority (for short 'bmrda') - respondent No. 1.

(2.) BY the impugned notifications the 1st respondent has notified that since it has undertaken the task of preparing Interim Master Plan for Anekal, Hoskote, Kanakapura, Magadi and nelamangala planning areas coming within its jurisdiction, in the interest of ensuring planned development of the region and in aid of preparing the Interim Master Plan the proposals for conversion of the land use and other proposals under Section 10 of the Bangalore Metropolitan region Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') shall be rejected. The petitioners claim that the impugned notifications affect their rights to have their lands converted by approaching the Authorities under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri. R. N. Narasimha Murthy appearing for the petitioners contends that there is no power vested in the BMRDA to issue such directions prohibiting the Authorities functioning under various statutes including the Authorities discharging their duties under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act He submits that the impugned notifications are not issued by the State Government expressed in the name of the Governor and it is nothing but interference in the exercise of the statutory powers by the prescribed Authorities under the Land Revenue Act. In this regard, he submits that when Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act confers powers on the revenue Officers to pass orders regarding the change of land use, no other Authority has the power to exercise the said power vested in the specified Authorities to whom the legislature has conferred such powers. He has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Commissioner of police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR (39) 1952 SC 16.