Dr Tinkle Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

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.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SAUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

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

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570005.

¶20

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

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(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)

¶25

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.MYSDCALN1/MISC/13/2024(E341220) DATED 23.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The core question that arises for consideration in this

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (‘ULC Repeal Act, 1999’ for short) and after the grant of conversion orders?

¶34

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-ALN1-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.

¶35

Brief facts:

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

23.06.2025 directing that the condition of reserving 25%

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

clarification, the competent authority had already granted conversion of the land.

¶49

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 .

¶50

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

¶51

7 -

¶52

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

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

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.

¶55

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶56

submissions and perused the material on record.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Government, the competent authority-Deputy

¶65

Commissioner proceeded to grant conversion of the lands for residential purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka

¶66

Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶67

Subsequently, the petitioners approached the

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

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.

¶73

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

¶74

11 -

¶75

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

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

jurisdiction and contrary to the settled legal position. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and this Court pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶80

ii. The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru (Annexure-H) is hereby quashed .

¶81

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.

¶82

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.

¶83

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

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

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.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶88

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Dr Tinkle Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Tinkle Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Beebijan Vs Sri Khaleemulla @ Babu

Smt Lakkamma Vs Sri H P Lakshmana

Mrs Sarabai Yusuf Vs Mr Shibu Hussain Yusuf Arakkal

Mr. William D Souza Vs Srimath Annatheshwara Devaru

Mukesh Kumar Choradia Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Shree Sai Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka