- (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48/92 and Civil Appeals Nos. 4543-45/1992 These appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by way of public interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court to challenge the order dated June 29, 1991 passed by the Government of Karnataka approving the scheme framed by M/s. D.L.F. Universal Limited (for short "DLF") for development of 270 sites for country villas in Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. By its judgment dated April 24, 1992 the High Court, while allowing the said writ petitions, has set aside the said order of the State Government dated June 29, 1991.
(2.) During the period 1972-76, forty-two serving and retired members of the Indian Defence Forces individually purchased lands admeasuring about 414 acres in Magadi Taluk of Bangalore Rural District. The owners of these lands formed themselves into a co-operative society called "the Arkavati Progressive Farmers Cooperative Society" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cooperative Soceity'). In 1979 the said land owners submitted applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, for permission to divert their lands to non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Revenue Act").The Special Deputy Commissioner, after obtaining the views of the Director (Town Planning), passed orders in May, June and July 1979 in some of those cases according sanction for diversion of the lands for non-agricultural/industrial/residential purposes subject to the conditions mentioned in those orders. In other cases the Special Deputy Commissioner either did not communicate the order rejecting the request for permission or did not pass any kind of order for a period of four months from the date of application filed by the different holders with the result that in all such cases permission sought was deemed to have been granted under Section 95(5) of the Land Revenue Act. The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Water Supply and Sewerage Board") filed appeals against the said orders/deemed orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") under Section 49 of the Act. The said appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated August 13, 1981. After the passing of the said order of the Tribunal dated August 13, 1981 the owners whose applications had been rejected earlier and those who did not receive the orders on their applications regarding conversion filed fresh applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner by his orders dated March 27, 1982 granted permission for conversion under Section 95 to those applicants also. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal as well as the orders dated March 27, 1982 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Water Supply and Sewerage Board filed writ petitions (W.P.Nos. 19919-19954 of 82 and 21172-21177 of 82) before the Karnataka High Court. In the meanwhile the lands of the individual owners were purchased by DLF and it got itself impleaded as respondent in those writ petitions. The said writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated April 27, 1987 whereby the order of the Tribunal dated August 13, 1981 as well as the orders dated March 27, 1982 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner were quashed on the view that having regard to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Planning Act") and Section 148 of the Land Revenue Act for a change in land use for the purpose of establishing a new village or township or city, as the case may be, the State Government must first take a decision as to whether a new village or township or city should be raised in a particular area and if it decides that in a particular area a new village or township or city should be raised it has to issue a notification declaring that area as the local planning area for the purpose of the Planning Act and thereafter further steps in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act had to be taken and it is noly on complying with these provisions the permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Act can be sought and obtained in the case of establishment of a new township. It was held that it is a case where large tract of agricultural land is being used for raising a new township and this was a matter which lies within the exclusive decision of the State Government and it is the State Government which has to decide and select the area for location of a new village, township or city, as the case may be.
(3.) Writ Appeals Nos. 744-785 of 87 filed against the said judgment of the learned single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated November 28, 1990. Agreeing with the views of the learned single Judge the learned Judges held that the State Government must first take a decision as to whether a new village or township or city should be raised in a particular area and if it decides to do so it has to issue a notification declaring that area as the local planning area and the necessary steps ought to follow and thereafter a notification under Section 148(1) of the Land Revenue Act could be issued and it is only thereafter the question of converting an agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Act would arise. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, while dismissing the appeals, observed : "Our judgment will not come in the way of the Government independently considering the matter and coming to any conclusion on merits.";