MURTIDHER RAO, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) 1. Muthaiah and others were the owners of Sy. No. 66 (4 Acres and 12 guntas) and sy No. 76 (6 Acres 19 guntas) of Nagarbhavi village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioner claims to have purchased 2 acres in Sy. No 66 and 3 acres 9 guntas in Sy No. 76 by registered sale deed dated 3-10-1966. The record of rights show that he is recognised as Khatedar. Petitioner applied for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose and by order dated 19th February 1982 (Annexure-E), the Tahsildar, Banga lore North granted the certificate of conversion, as ordered by Spl. Deputy Commissioner in 0 M. dated 6-8-1981. On 16-2-1981 by Registered Sale deed petitioner sold 2. 2 guntas in Sy. No. 76 to smt. Padma Chandrasekhar ; on 6-3 1981 he sold another bit of 2. 2 guntas in favour of Sri C. S. Venkatadri. If by these sale deeds the ownership rights are transferred, petitioner has ceased to be a khathedar to this extent. The above Purchasers have filed applications before the bangalore Development Autho-ity (for short 'b D. A. ') for reconveyance on 1st may 1984. ( 2 ) THE above two lands alongwith vast extents of other lands in Nagarbhavi and Malagala villages were sought to be acquired for formation of Layout called "nagarbhavi Layout" by the B. D. A. The area so acquired covers 1210 ares 35 guntas. The Preliminary Notification dated 15-7-1982 was published in Karnataka Gazette on 12-8-1982, 19-8-1982 and 26-8-1982. The names of the petitioner, alongwith Chandriah, Chikmuniyappa, muthaiah Bin Muniyappa and munikrishnappa are mentioned as against these two lands. ( 3 ) THE writ petition of Munikrishnappa in W. P. . No. 16748/1986 is dismissed on 30-7-1987. On 4th September 1982, a copy of the notification was sent to City of Bangalore Corporation, Deputy commissioner and Tahsildar. On 13-10- 1982 notice was sent to petitioner on his nagarbhavi address. As he was not found it was affixed on the land. The endorsement on the notice reads thus : ( 4 ) SIMILAR endorsement is found on the notice in respect of Sy. No. 76. Thereafter, the final declaration, dated 16-8-85 was published in Karnataka Gazette on 7th November 1985. This writ petition is filed on 16 5-1986. As he was not found it was affixed on the land. The endorsement on the notice reads thus : ( 4 ) SIMILAR endorsement is found on the notice in respect of Sy. No. 76. Thereafter, the final declaration, dated 16-8-85 was published in Karnataka Gazette on 7th November 1985. This writ petition is filed on 16 5-1986. ( 5 ) SINCE arguments are advanced with reference to Town and Country planning Act, 1961 (Act 11 of 1963) a reference to relevant provisions of this act becomes necessary. This Act came into force on 31st December 1964. Section 4-A of the Act requires the State government to declare Local Planning area, so as to vest power in the Planning authority namely the B. DA. for the City of Bangalore In exercise of this power the Government of Karnataka issued Notification S. O. 3446, dated 1st November 1965 ; Schedule I mentions the areas comprised in City of Bangalore and Sche- dule-II mentions the geographical limits i. e. boundaries. In Schedule I 218 villages are mentioned Nagarbhavi village in Yeshwanthapur Hobli is at serial No. 70. Kaval Byrasandra is mentioned at serial No. 22. Both are in Bangalore north Taluk. While Nagarbhavi is in yeshwanthapur Hubli, Kaval Byrasandra is Bangalore Kasba Hobli ; both villages come under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar bangalore North. The said notification reads thus :"labour AND MUNICIPAL administration, SECRETARIAT notification bangalore, dated 1st November 1965 s 0. 3446.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4a of the Karnataka Town and Country planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1963), the Government of Karnataka hereby declares that with effect from 1st December 1965 the area comprising the City of Bangalore and other areas indicated in Schedule I to be a local Planning Area for purposes of the said Act which shall be called by the name of the Bangalore City Planning area and the limits of the said Planning area shall be as indicated in Schedule II. " ( 6 ) ON 27th June 1972 the Chairman, planning Authority, Bangalore City, planning Area published a notice regarding the publication of Outer Development plan (ODP in short ). The said notice as published in the Gazette, dated 13-7-72 reads thus :-"office OF THE CHAIRMAN, planning AUTHORITY, bangalore CITY PLANNING AREA, bangalore-9 dated 27th June 1972 notice of publication of Outline development Plan. The said notice as published in the Gazette, dated 13-7-72 reads thus :-"office OF THE CHAIRMAN, planning AUTHORITY, bangalore CITY PLANNING AREA, bangalore-9 dated 27th June 1972 notice of publication of Outline development Plan. In pursuance of Rule 33 of the Mysore planning Authority Rules, 1965 Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development Plan of Bangalore City Planning area has been prepared under the mysore Town and Country Planning act 1961 (Mysore Act 11 of 1963 ). The said plan has been finally approved by the Government of Mysore as per section 13 (3) of the above Act. A copy of the above approved plan and the report are available for inspection at the Office of the Planning Authority in Seshadri Road, Bangalore City, during office house. Sd/- n. S. Ramachandra, chairman Planning Authority. " ( 7 ) SECTION 14 of Act 11 of 1963 provides :"14. Enforcement of the Outline development Plan and the Regulations (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . every land use, every change in land- use and every development in the area covered by the plan shall conform to the provisions of this Act, the Outline development Plan and the regulations, as finally approved by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 13. (2) No such change in land use or development as is referred to in subsection (1) shall be made except with the written permission of the Planning authority which shall be contained in a commencement certificate granted by the Planning Authority in the form prescribed. "the above material makes it clear that after 13th July, 1972, any change in the land use shall be as permitted by the planning Authority i. e. B. D. A. Therefore, the conversion certificate obtained by the petitioner from Tahsildar is clearly illegal and without competance. Such illegal conversion does not have the effect of changing an agricultural land to a non- agricultural land. Such illegal conversion does not have the effect of changing an agricultural land to a non- agricultural land. This aspect of the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. K. Srinivasan ' v State of Karnataka (AIR 1987 S. C. 1059 ). Before dismissing the appeals, their Lordships observed thus :"20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It may be that notwithstanding the Regulations some building licences were granted in contravention of the Regulations but that only exposes the deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities and emphasises the need for greater public vigilance. The present writ petitions, we hope, are forerunners of such vigilance. "7. The land, though so converted, continued to be described as agricultural land in the revenue records, as is clear from the documents produced by the petitioner. ( 8 ) AFTER the final declaration the authorities initiated compensation proceedings; in those proceedings Notices under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 14, Land acquisition Act were published in Prajavani on 31-3-1986, Deccan Herald on 12-4-1986 and Kannada Prabha on 94- 1986. Petitioner filed his objections before the Special L. A. O. , B. D A. on 18-2-85 requesting the authorities to drop the proceedings, on the ground that he has formed a Layout, sold sites and the area is covered by buildings. He stated that he and the purchasers have constructed buildings. Petitioner asserts that there are 34 R. C. C. buildings. ( 9 ) MR. Krishnappa, learned Advocate for petitioner, contended that acquisition is liable to be quashed on the following grounds: (1) Notices under Sec. 17 (5) is not served on the petitioner; affixture of land is no service, in the eye of law. (2) There is no compliance with the requirements of Sec. 17 (2) and 17 (3) of the BDA Act; (3) Petitioner resides in 'kavalbyra- sandra' and not in 'nagarbhavi' and therefore notice should have been served at his residence (contention urged at the time of arguments ; there is no plea in writ petition ). (2) There is no compliance with the requirements of Sec. 17 (2) and 17 (3) of the BDA Act; (3) Petitioner resides in 'kavalbyra- sandra' and not in 'nagarbhavi' and therefore notice should have been served at his residence (contention urged at the time of arguments ; there is no plea in writ petition ). (4) Lands, being converted lands, could not be acquired ; (5) The description of the property, as agricultural lands in the preliminary and final notifications is incorrect, as by that date it had ceased to be an agricultural land; (6) The area is included in Bangalore Agglomeration under the Urban land Ceiling Act, hence cannot be acquired ; (7) The final declaration is published more than three years after the preliminary notification, hence it is illegal. ( 10 ) MR. N. K. Patil, Counsel for bda, produced the original record and on the basis of available material, he submitted that :- (1) There is no infirmity in the procedure. The notification was published in three consecutive issues of Karnataka gazette on 12-8-1982, 19-8-82 and 26 8-82. On 4-9 1982 copies of notifications were sent to the Corporation, Office of the Deputy commissioner, Bangalore, Tahsildar, Bangalore as required by Sections 17 (2) and (3) of the Act; he depended on Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act and placed strong reliance on the following observations in the decision of the Supreme Court in hari Singh v. State of U P. (AIR 1984 s. C. 1020 ). "4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is no doubt true that the appellants have pleaded that they did not know anything about the notifications which had been published in the Gazettee till they came to know of the notices issued under Section 9 (3) of the Act but they have not pleaded that there was no publication in the locality of the public notice of the substance of the notification as required by Section 4 (1) of the Act. It should be presumed that official acts would have been performed duly as required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The only other petition in which these proceedings are challenged in Civil Misc. It should be presumed that official acts would have been performed duly as required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The only other petition in which these proceedings are challenged in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 11476 of 1982 on the file of the High Court filed subsequently by amar Singh and four others. Moreover in a small place like Kheragarh where these plots are situate, the acquisition of these lands would be the talk of the town in a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that the appellants who are residents of that place would not have known till July 1982 that the impugned notification had been published in 1980. Any interference in this case filed after two and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice. This appeal should, therefore, fail on the ground of delay alone. " (2) The conversion certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North taluk, on the basis of the order of special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, dated 6-8-1981 is non est, as it is issued, in utter ignorance of the legal provisions. The revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to grant conversion certificate after the publication of -OOP'. (3) Petitioner having sold large extent of land has no locus stand! ; he cannot represent his purchasers ; (4) Provisions of Urban Land Ceiling act do not. affect the power of acquisition. Acquisition being governed by sections 17 and 19 of the BDA, Act the question of delay, as contemplated by Sec. 6 L. A. Act does not arise and this aspect is covered by series of decisions of this Court. ( 11 ) MR. Laxminarayana, High Court govt. Pleader, supported Mr. N. K. Patil. ( 12 ) POINTS that emerge for consideration are : - (1) Whether the Acquisition is liable to be set aside on the ground that there is non-compliance with Section 17 of the B. D A. Act ? (2) Whether the Revenue Authorities were competent to grant conversion after the publication of "o D. P. " and weat is its effect ? (3) What is the effect of Urban Land ceiling Act on the power of Acquisition under the provisions of B. D. A. Act ? (2) Whether the Revenue Authorities were competent to grant conversion after the publication of "o D. P. " and weat is its effect ? (3) What is the effect of Urban Land ceiling Act on the power of Acquisition under the provisions of B. D. A. Act ? point No. 1 :- Compliance with section 17 (2) (3) and (5) of BDA Act :- having verified the original records, i am satisfied that there is compliance with Sec. 17 (2) and (3) of the Act. Mr. Krishnappa contended that there is no proof that notification was affixed in some conspicuous part of B. D. A. office. Deputy commissioner's office, and office of the bangalore Corporation. In the normal course, it is practically impossible to maintain any such record regarding the display of the Notification in the conspicuous part of the office. There are matters of presumptions. To say that whenever any matter is displayed on the notice Board, one should take a photograph or draw a Mahazar is a practical impossibility. I reject this contention. Coming to the question whether affixture on the land is sufficient compliance and serves the purpose. The acquisition is of the lands ; the notice is required to be served on the person, whose name appears in the records as primarily liable to pay land assessment or property tax. This record does not contain the latest residential address of the Khatedar. It is true that person may not reside in the land. It is not uncommon that many a khatedars reside in far off places and in these days they may be staying in other countries also. The Act does not contemplate that Khatedar should be served personally, wherever he resides. It may prove an impossible venture. All khatedars are not fully dependent on agricultural income. With the abolition of Village offices, Inams and introduction of several agrarian legislations like. Land Reforms act, Prevention of Fragmentation of holdings Act etc. , many Khatedars have switched over to several other avocations. Therefore, the contention that the BDA should serve the 'khatedar' wherever he actually resides cannot be accepted. Subsection (6) of Section 17 provides alternative modes. Adoption of any one mode would be sufficient compliance. Particularly, where a vast extents of land in the same vicinity or village is under acquisition. , many Khatedars have switched over to several other avocations. Therefore, the contention that the BDA should serve the 'khatedar' wherever he actually resides cannot be accepted. Subsection (6) of Section 17 provides alternative modes. Adoption of any one mode would be sufficient compliance. Particularly, where a vast extents of land in the same vicinity or village is under acquisition. A scrutiny of the notification makes it clear that all surrounding lands are sought for acquisition. To say that the Khatedars of adjoining lands, lands in the neighbourhood had knowledge and the petitioner had no such knowledge is unbelievable. On facts, it is difficult to accept the plea of innocence or ignorance. In this context, the submission was petitioner resides in Kaval Byrasandra and the lands are situated in Nagarbhavi. Both the villages are in Bangalore North taluk. For revenue administration the former is in Bangalore Kasba (Taluk Headquarters) and the latter is in Yeshvanthpur hobli ; sub-division of Taluk This can hardly be of any meaningful consequence. Mr. Krishnappa, however, placed reliance on the following observations of this court in B. N. Patil v. State (AIR 1981 kar. page 111) "6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The statement that the notice was affixed to the land is un-understandable and conveys no meaning. What the law requires is that it should be published at convenient place in the locality where the land proposed for acquisition is situate. The requirement of the section as to the publication of the substance of the notification at convenient place in the locality where the land is situate connotes a definite idea and is intended to serve an important purpose. One can understand the claim that a notice containing substance of the notification was affixed to some identifiable landmark in the locality. The report of the officer effecting the publication must specify the place of such publication. In the present case, the report does not even say as to which precise part of the land the notice came to be affixed. The report of the officer effecting the publication must specify the place of such publication. In the present case, the report does not even say as to which precise part of the land the notice came to be affixed. " the Court was interpreting the following requirement in Section 4 (1) of tha Land Acquisition Act. "the Deputy Commissioner shall cause public notice of the substance of such Notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. " (Emphasis supplied ). These words are not found in Section 17. Sub section (3) of Section 17 requires the publication of Notification in : (i) Three consecutive issues of the official Gazette ; (ii) Affix the same in some conspicuous part of its own office (i e. B D. A's office)/deputy Commissioner's office, office of the Corporation and such other places as the BDA may consider necessary. Sub-section (5) require persona' service on the Khatedars, to be done in one of the modes provided in Sub-section (6 ). Therefore the ratio of the above decision, has no application. In State of Gujarat v. Panch of Nan/ hamam's Pole ( AIR 1986 SC 803 ) interpreting Rule 1 of the Gujarat Rules and section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act the Court observed thus : - 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 4 (1) quoted above indicates the manner in which a notice will be given to the parties interested. And that is by getting a public notice having the substance of the notification given at a convenient place in the said locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 4 (1) quoted above indicates the manner in which a notice will be given to the parties interested. And that is by getting a public notice having the substance of the notification given at a convenient place in the said locality. Therefore, what Rule 1 contemplates is a notice to the interested parties as required under Section 4 (1) and Section 4 (1) requires the notice to be notified at a convenient place in the said locality for information of the interested parties. It is, therefore, clear that by reading Section 4 (1) with Rule 1 it could not be interpreted to mean that a personal notice to each and every interested person is the requirement of section 4 and in absence of such a notice the proceedings of acquisition will be invalidated. " therefore, there is no non-compliance with Section 17 (2) (3) (5) and (6) of the act. Point No. 2 : conversion Certificate vide O. M. dated 6-8-1981 of the Special Deputy commissioner and the Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore North on 19-2-1982. The contention was that in view of the above certificate, the land had ceased to be agricultural land ; the description of the property in the preliminary notification and final declaration is incorrect. What is sought to be acquired is not correctly notified. Annexure-A is an index of lands (extract) and Annexure B is a copy of record of rights mutation entry in respect of Sy. No. 66 ; Annexures-C and D are record of rights extract for Sy. No. 76. In these documents the property is described as agricultural land, which is so reflected in the acquisition notifications. But the petitioner's counsel relied on Annexure-E-the Conversion certificate dated 19th Feb. 1982 I have already referred to the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (Act 11 of 1963) and the Notifications in this regard. No. 76. In these documents the property is described as agricultural land, which is so reflected in the acquisition notifications. But the petitioner's counsel relied on Annexure-E-the Conversion certificate dated 19th Feb. 1982 I have already referred to the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (Act 11 of 1963) and the Notifications in this regard. On the day, the Deputy commissioner passed the order under section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, nagarbhavi village had been included in bangalore City Planning Area and Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act begins with the words "subject to any law for the time being force regarding erection of buildings" ; therefore for conversion the competent authority is b D. A. and Deputy Commissioner had no powers. Therefore, the so called conversion is legally non-est and does not change the character or nature of the agricultural land. The description of the property is correct and is in no way defective. Point No. 3 : effect of Urban Land Ceiling Act - the provisions of this Act do not affect the acquisition. The Act prescribed the ceiling limit in Urban Agglomeration. Whether the property is within the ceiling limit or exceeds the ceiling does not affect the power of acquisition. If the lands acquired are determined by the competent Authority under this Act as within the Ceiling limit which the declarant is entitled to hold, on acquisition, he would be entitled to compensation. If on the other hand, it is in excess of the ceiling limit and has by orders of the competent authority vested in the Government, the owner or declarant may not get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. But in the instant case, this is academic, as there is no material to pronounce on this aspect. Petitioner has not produced any document to show that the lands in question are treated as excess or surplus land and they have vested with the Government. Therefore, on facts, the argument has no substance. The other contention that the final declaration is published after 3 years stands concluded by the judgment in writ petition Nos. 3531, 4335 and connected cases of 1984, decided on 5-4-1984. The above decision was followed in writ petition No. 18867/1986 decided on 31-3-1987 ; the writ appeal against this order in W. A. No. 522/1187 was rejected on 24-6-1987. The other contention that the final declaration is published after 3 years stands concluded by the judgment in writ petition Nos. 3531, 4335 and connected cases of 1984, decided on 5-4-1984. The above decision was followed in writ petition No. 18867/1986 decided on 31-3-1987 ; the writ appeal against this order in W. A. No. 522/1187 was rejected on 24-6-1987. For the aforesaid reason this petition fails ; it is dismissed ; no costs. --- *** --- .