[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Tinkle Jain vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:15211
                                                            WP No. 23544 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                                  BEFORE

                                THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.23544 OF 2025 (ULC)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   DR. TINKLE JAIN
                           D/O V.K. JAIN,
                           AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

                      2.   RYTHM JAIN,
                           D/O V.K. JAIN,
                           AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

                           BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
                           MOTHER MRS. MEENAKSHI JAIN,
                           W/O V.K. JAIN,
                           AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                           R/O #49, SIFCO,
                           BENGALURU - MYSURU ROAD,
                           SIDDALINGAPURA, MYSURU-570003.
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M       (BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Location: HIGH            SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             AND:
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
                           DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                           VIKASA SAUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

                      2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                           MYSORE, MYSURU DISTRICT,
                           MYSURU-570011.

                      3.   THE COMMISSIONER,
                           MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
                           JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570005.
                                 -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:15211
                                      WP No. 23544 of 2025


 HC-KAR




4.   SRI N.C. MAHESH,
     S/O. CHIKKAMOGEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
     R/O. NO.1904, 3RD CROSS,
     KENGERI UPANAGARA,
     BENGALURU-560060.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;
    SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
    SRI DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER,     MYSORE      PASSED     CASE     NO.MYSDC-
ALN1/MISC/13/2024(E341220)     DATED     23.06.2025    VIDE
ANNEXURE-H.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA


                       ORAL ORDER

The core question that arises for consideration in this

writ petition is, whether the Deputy Commissioner could

enforce the 25% EWS/LIG reservation condition under the

Government Order dated 18.11.1998 despite the repeal of

the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('ULC

Act, 1976' for short) by the Urban Land (Ceiling and

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 ('ULC Repeal Act, 1999' for

short) and after the grant of conversion orders?

2. The petitioners have approached this Court

seeking to quash the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by

the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru in Case No.MYSDC-AL-

N1-MIC/13/2024, whereby the authority has directed that

25% of the site in the layout be reserved for Economically

Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low-Income Group (LIG)

beneficiaries in the terms of the Government Order dated

18.11.1998.

Brief facts:

3. The land bearing Survey Nos.12/1, 12/2, 12/3,

16/1, 16/2 and 16/3 of Dattagalli Village, Mysuru Taluk

measuring in all 8 acres 35 guntas were purchased by the

father of the petitioners through registered sale deeds in

the year 2001-2002. Subsequently, the properties came to

be transferred in the petitioners names through registered

document. Prior to the purchase of the property, the then

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

landowners had obtained an order from the Government

dated 18.11.1998 granting exemption under Section 20

(1) (a) of the ULC Act, 1976 for the formation of a

residential layout, subject to certain conditions, including

reservation of 25% of the sites for EWS / LIG

beneficiaries. Subsequently, the ULC Act, 1976 stood

repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Repeal Act, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioners' predecessors

in title sought conversion of the land for residential

purposes. Upon a clarification issued by the State

Government that the ULC Act stood repealed, the Deputy

Commissioner granted conversion under Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4. The petitioner thereafter approached the

Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) seeking

approval for the development of the property. During the

said process, objections were raised by respondent No.4,

which were examined by the authority. Subsequently, the

Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

23.06.2025 directing that the condition of reserving 25%

of the sites of EWS / LIG beneficiaries be implemented,

relying upon the Government Order dated 18.11.1998.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached

this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M. R. Rajagopal

appearing on behalf of Sri P. Mahesha, learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly

unsustainable in law. It is contended that the condition

relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner emanates from

an order passed under Section 20 of the ULC Act, 1976.

The said enactment has been repealed by the ULC Repeal

Act, 1999 and therefore, the exemption order and the

conditions thereto cannot survive after repeal of the

parent statute. It is therefore contended that the

Government itself had clarified that the ULC Act, 1976

stood abolished and the proceedings relating to the land

are required to be dealt with under the provisions of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Pursuant to such

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

clarification, the competent authority had already granted

conversion of the land.

6. Learned Senior counsel submits that once the

conversion orders were granted and the matter had

attained finality, the Deputy Commissioner could not have

reopened the issue and imposed conditions derived from a

repealed statute. It is submitted that once the ULC Act,

1976 stood repealed, the exemption orders passed under

Section 20 of the ULC Act, 1976 and the conditions

attached thereto cannot be enforced unless the land had

already been vested in the State. It is submitted that the

impugned order is passed without jurisdiction as the

Deputy Commissioner had become functus officio.

7. Learned AGA for the State submits that the

Government Order dated 18.11.1998 imposed a condition

requiring reservation of 25% of the sites for EWS / LIG

beneficiaries, and the said condition has not been complied

with. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner has

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

merely directed compliance with the said condition while

passing the impugned order. However, it is fairly

submitted that the ULC Act, 1976 stood repealed and that

the conversion order had subsequently been granted

under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

9. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the

aforementioned lands, measures in all 8 acres 35 guntas,

form the subject matter of the present proceedings. The

petitioners traced their title of the said property through a

registered sale deed executed in the year 2001 and 2002

and subsequent registered documents. It is also not in

dispute that the landowners had obtained an order of

exemption from the Government under Section 20 (1) (a)

of the ULC Act, 1976, permitting formation of the

residential layout subject to certain conditions including

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

the requirement of reserving 25% of the sites for

Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Low Income

Group (LIG) beneficiaries. However the ULC Act, 1976

stood repealed by the ULC Repeal Act, 1999.

Consequently, upon the repeal of the parent statute, the

statutory regime governing exemptions granted under

Section 20 of the ULC Act, 1976 stood obliterated.

10. It is also relevant to state here that the

petitioners' predecessor in title sought conversion of the

land for residential purposes. The Deputy Commissioner

had addressed a communication seeking clarification

regarding applicability of the condition contained in

Government Order dated 18.11.1998. Pursuant thereto,

the State Government issued a clarification dated

08.01.2008 (Annexure-D), categorically stating that the

ULC Act, 1976 was no longer in force and had been

abolished and further directing the matter to be dealt

under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964. In light of the clarification issued by the

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

Government, the competent authority-Deputy

Commissioner proceeded to grant conversion of the lands

for residential purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964.

11. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the

MUDA, seeking approval for development of the property.

During the course of the said proceedings, objections were

raised by respondent No.4. The MUDA, after obtaining a

legal opinion and examining the objection, rejected the

same and proceeded to approve the plan and issued

demand for betterment charges. Notwithstanding the

above developments, respondent No.2-Deputy

Commissioner has now passed the impugned order dated

23.06.2025, directing 25% of the sites to be reserved for

EWS / LIG beneficiaries in terms of the Government Order

dated 18.11.1998. The impugned order proceeds on the

assumption that the condition contained in the

Government Order dated 18.11.1998 continues to bind the

land even after the repeal of the ULC Act, 1976, which

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

reasoning is not accepted. Since the said Act stood

repealed by the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, the statutory

framework under which the exemptions were granted

ceased to exist. The exemption passed under Section 20 of

the ULC Act, 1976 and the conditions attached thereto

cannot independently survive after repeal of the parent

enactment.

12. It is also relevant to note that the impugned

order has been passed nearly after two decades after the

repeal of the ULC Act, 1976 and after the authorities

themselves had proceeded on the basis that the provisions

of the repealed enactment were no longer applicable. The

Deputy Commissioner, having granted the conversion

order and the proceedings had attained finality, had

become functus officio and therefore could not reopen the

issue and impose a condition derived from a repealed

statute. On that count as well, the impugned order

directing enforcement of the condition under the

Government Order dated 18.11.1998 is clearly without

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

jurisdiction and contrary to the settled legal position.

Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and

this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by

the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru (Annexure-H)

is hereby quashed.

iii. It is held that the condition imposed under the

Government Order dated 18.11.1998

(Annexure-B) issued under Section 20 (1) (a) of

the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

cannot be enforced after the repeal of the said

enactment by the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

iv. Consequently, the respondents shall not insist

upon the reservation of 25% of the sites for EWS /

LIG beneficiaries on the basis of the said

Government Order.

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15211

HC-KAR

v. The Competent Authority shall consider and

process the petitioners' development proposal in

accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 and applicable planning

statute.