S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is before us in pursuance of a reference made under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4-2-1985 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal (respondent 3) in appeal No. 204 of 1984. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company registered under thecompanies Act. The company owned a total extent of 49 acres 383/4 guntas of land in davangere village. The company is running its factory in an area covering 13 acres 321/4 guntas of land after conversion thereof under Section 95 of the Karnataka land revenue act. The remaining extent of 36 acres 6 guntas are stated to be agricultural land. ( 4 ) THE improvement board, davangere, sought to acquire an extent of 28 acres 14 guntas of land for the purpose of forming a lay-out which came to be known as "devaraj urs layout". The proposed acquisition was made under the Provisions of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (karnataka act No. 11 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as "the Improvement Boards Act" ). In pursuance of the final notification issued in the year 1977, possession of the land was taken by the improvement board, davangere, on 9-8-1978, as per the endorsement to that effect produced as annexure-a. Since the land acquisition officer of davangere improvement board did not pass the award in respect of the acquired land, the company approached this court for relief in writ petition No. 28763 of 1982 in which an order dated 4-2-1983 was passed directing the land acquisition officer to pass the award. The appeal filed by the chairman of the improvement board, davangere, in writ appeal No. 2197 of 1983 came to be dismissed on 13-11-1983. Thereafter, the land acquisition officer passed an award. However, since the amount payable under the award exceeded Rs. L,00,000/-, the award was referred to the divisional commissioner, Bangalore, for approval in accordance with the rules. Since the divisional commissioner did not approve the award, the company filed writ petition No. 6351 of 1984 seeking a writ of mandamus directing him to deal with the award in accordance with law. L,00,000/-, the award was referred to the divisional commissioner, Bangalore, for approval in accordance with the rules. Since the divisional commissioner did not approve the award, the company filed writ petition No. 6351 of 1984 seeking a writ of mandamus directing him to deal with the award in accordance with law. The said writ petition also came to be allowed on 19-7-1984 directing the divisional commissioner, Bangalore, to dispose of the award passed by the land acquisition officer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Inspite of it, the divisional commissioner did not pass any order in respect of the award transmitted to him by the land acquisition officer. ( 5 ) WHILE the matters stood thus, it transpires that after the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the company had filed a declaration under Section 79-b (ii) (a) of the said act with regard to its alleged excess holding of agricultural land. It further transpires that the company had also claimed exemption under Section 89 (l) (b) (ii) read with Section 81 (l) (a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on the ground that the land in question stood mortgaged to the Mysore state financial corporation. Having regard to that fact, the special deputy commissioner, chitradurga, who was the competent authority, passed an order dated 3-6-1982 exempting 36 acres 6 guntas of land covered by the mortgage in favour of the aforesaid financial corporation. In respect of the remaining 13 acres 32 guntas, it was stated that it is already alienated and hence not required to be covered by the exemption. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved of the said Order, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the appellate tribunal which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of the special deputy commissioner, chitradurga, with a further direction for taking action under Section 79-b (iii) of the Land Reforms Act. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this petition. ( 7 ) SRI k. s. ramadas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions: (1) the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") do not apply to the land in question for more than one reason; viz. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this petition. ( 7 ) SRI k. s. ramadas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions: (1) the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") do not apply to the land in question for more than one reason; viz. : (a) that the land in respect of which exemption was granted under Section 81 of the act by respondent 2 cannot be treated as an agricultural land within the purview of the definition of "land" under Section 2 (18) of the act; (b) that having regard to the nature and user of the land (having all along been used for the purpose of the factory), the land could not be brought within the purview of the act and, as such, even the exemption sought and granted by respondent 2 was virtually redundant. It was really not necessary for the company to have made a declaration of the alleged excess land as being held by the company. Secondly, by virtue of the mortgage of the land in favour of the financial institution and the state, the land in question stood automatically exempted as provided under Section 81 of the act. Thirdly; the land having been duly acquired and possession thereof taken by the improvement board in pursuance of the final notification issued under the Improvement Boards Act in 1977 for executing an improvement scheme under the Improvement Boards Act, it had already vested with the agency of the government, viz. , the davangere improvement board, as far back as on 9-8-1978. The acquisition thus having become complete and the improvement scheme admittedly having been completed by forming of a layout, allotment of sites and construction of houses, the proceedings under Section 79-b of the act have become infructuous and do not survive for consideration. Even otherwise, vesting of the land already having taken place in an agency of the state, the question of the land being brought within the purview of the Section 79-b of the act for vesting does not arise. In fact, admittedly, there is no existing agricultural land as such by virtue of the implementation of the improvement scheme after its acquisition and vesting in the state under the Provisions of the Improvement Boards Act. In fact, admittedly, there is no existing agricultural land as such by virtue of the implementation of the improvement scheme after its acquisition and vesting in the state under the Provisions of the Improvement Boards Act. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances of the case, to carry out the impugned direction given by the appellate tribunal to respondent 2 would be an exercise in futility. In this connection, a further contention is urged to the effect that the land in question has also been included and identified as the residential zone in the comprehensive development plan of the city of davangere under the Provisions of the Karnataka town and country planning Act, 1961. In the circumstances, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal is wholly irregular, impracticable and incapable of being enforced in accordance with law. There appears to be considerable force in the aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT is not seriously disputed that the land in question actually measuring 20 acres 14 guntas (as evidenced by Annexure-G in writ petition No. 6351 of 1984, but wrongly stated herein as 28 acres 14 guntas), was acquired by the improvement board, davangere, in pursuance of a notification of the year 1977. It is further not disputed that possession of the land was taken by the improvement board on 9-8-1978 itself for executing the development scheme. Pursuant to possession having been taken, the land has been utilised by formation of a layout and allotment of sites to the public in the area which came to be known as "devaraj urs layout". It is, however, contended on behalf of the state that notwithstanding the aforesaid developments, there has been no vesting of the land in the state under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and, as such, it is open for the authorities under the Land Reforms Act to take action in respect of the excess land under the Provisions of Section 79-b of the act. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant Provisions of the Improvement Boards Act. Section 35 reads as under:"35. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant Provisions of the Improvement Boards Act. Section 35 reads as under:"35. Provisions applicable to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement: (1) the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of land within or without the urban area under this act shall be regulated by the Provisions so far as they are applicable of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the board shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. (3) after the land vests in the government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deputy commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the board agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the board, and the land shall thereupon vest in the board. " (emphasis supplied) Section 13 relates to the power of the board to undertake works and incur expenditure for development and improvement schemes on its own initiative from its resources or at the request of the local authority concerned, if such local authority places at the disposal of the board the necessary funds for framing and carrying out any such schemes. It is provided that the government also may, when it deems necessary, require the board ,to take up any development scheme or improvement scheme or work and execute it in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be specified by the government. Section 15 provides the procedure for preparation of a development scheme. Section 16 provides that the board shall, after consideration of any representation received under Section 15 and after making such modifications in the scheme as it may deem fit, apply to the government for sanction to the scheme. The relevant portion of Section 18 reads as under:"18. Upon sanction, declaration to be published giving particulars of land to be acquired. (1) upon sanction of the scheme, the government shall publish in the official gazette a declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the board for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. Upon sanction, declaration to be published giving particulars of land to be acquired. (1) upon sanction of the scheme, the government shall publish in the official gazette a declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the board for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. (2) the declaration shall state the limits within which the land proposed to be acquired is situated, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and the place where a plan of the land may be inspected. (3) the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose, and the board shall, upon the publication of the said declaration proceed to execute the scheme. Xxx xxx xxx. " (emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) IT is seen that sub-section (3) of Section 18 gives a mandate to the board to proceed to execute the scheme upon the publication of the declaration. As slated earlier, it is not disputed that having taken possession of the land from the company, upon the publication of the declaration that the land is proposed to be acquired by the board for the purposes of the scheme, the board had immediately proceeded to execute the scheme on its own initiative and obviously from its own resources and nothing more was required to be done except to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, i. e. , that possession of the land having been taken by the board and further action having ensued under Section 18 of the Improvement Boards Act, it is vehemently urged by Sri ramdas that the land should be deemed to have been vested in the government within the purview of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. There cannot be any doubt that under Section 18 either actual occupation by the deputy commissioner or his agents (in this case, the board) or taking symbolic possession (when actual possession is already with the deputy commissioner) or doing something equivalent to effective possession is contemplated. Here, admittedly, the board had taken possession of the land in pursuance of the sanction of the scheme by the government. Here, admittedly, the board had taken possession of the land in pursuance of the sanction of the scheme by the government. The trend of the events pursuant to the notification and the execution of the scheme resulting in an award having been passed by the land acquisition officer, subject only to confirmation by the divisional commissioner, leaves no room to doubt the intention of the part of the improvement board, as an agency of the government, that possession as contemplated under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act had been effected thereby vesting the land absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. The only question that remains is the formal approval of the award by the divisional commissioner in view of the requirement thereof under'the relevant rules since the amount of the award exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/ -. This was merely a formality. This position also becomes clear since no objection was ever taken on behalf of the government in writ petition No. 6351 of 1984 regarding the question of vesting entitling the petitioner company to receive the compensation for the land acquired and utilised by the improvement board. In the circumstances, the question of the government exercising its power to withdraw from acquisition of the land also does not arise. In fact, the factum of vesting of the land in the government was never questioned by the state in earlier writ proceedings to which it was a party. ( 11 ) THAT being the position, the only other question that remains for consideration is whether the land comes within the purview of the act and whether respondent 2 has jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under Section 79-b of the act. ( 12 ) THE act was enacted, inter alia, for imposing a ceiling on land holdings. "land" as defined under Section 2 (18) means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. The expression "land" under Section 79-b of the act has to be necessarily understood in the same context. Section 79-b of the act prohibits holding of agricultural land, inter alia, by the companies. The expression "land" under Section 79-b of the act has to be necessarily understood in the same context. Section 79-b of the act prohibits holding of agricultural land, inter alia, by the companies. For the purpose of taking action under Section 79-b of the act regarding alleged excess holding, the land involved must continue to be an agricultural land used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. But it does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. It is not disputed, and indeed cannot be disputed, that there could not be an automatic vesting of the alleged excess land under Section 79-b of the act since such vesting can take effect only upon a declaration by the deputy commissioner under Section 79-b (3) of the act. This position of law is also well-settled in view of the ruling in mis. Mysore feeds ltd. V state of kamataka, 1988 (1) kar. L. j. 310; ILR 1988 kar. 889 in which a division bench of this court has held thus:"a perusal of Section 79-b of the l. r. act shows that it does not deem the land to have vested in the state government with effect from 1-3-1974. Vesting provided under Section 79-b (3) is the consequence of an enquiry and declaration made by the deputy commissioner under the said provision. The fact that the state is required to pay compensation to the land owner under Section 79-b (4) shows that, the title of the disabled person like the present petitioner company continues till the date of the declaration under Section 79-b (3 ). When the statute says that the deputy commissioner shall declare that land "shall vest" in the state government, it can only be prospective, to be operative on making the declaration. "as held in the above case, land which is agricultural may cease to be agricultural for various reasons. Theoretically such land may be capable of being used for agriculture and may fell within the definition of 'land' in Section 2 (18) of the act. However, in the absence of any specific finding regarding the nature or usage of the land as agricultural, the special deputy commissioner cannot treat it to be an agricultural land merely on account of the fact that permission for conversion of the land under Section 95 (2) of the Karnataka land revenue act was sought. However, in the absence of any specific finding regarding the nature or usage of the land as agricultural, the special deputy commissioner cannot treat it to be an agricultural land merely on account of the fact that permission for conversion of the land under Section 95 (2) of the Karnataka land revenue act was sought. Even otherwise, admittedly, the land in question does not satisfy any of the characteristics as required under the aforesaid definition investing respondent 2 with the jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 79-b of the act. Furthermore, since vesting could take place only on a declaration being made as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 79-b of the Act, a declaration by the holder at some earlier point of time in respect of the land cannot vest the authority with the jurisdiction to pass an order of vesting notwithstanding the fact that the land by then had ceased to be an agricultural land and treated as such since long. This view is also in conformity with the scheme of the Act, inter alia, regarding disposal of surplus land vesting in the state as provided under Section 77 of the act. ( 13 ) IN the view we have taken above, the order of the Karnataka appellate tribunal, inter alia, directing respondent 2 to take action under Section 79-b of the act cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion and the view taken by us, this petition has to succeed. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. The order dated 4-2-1985 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal in appeal No. 204 of 1984 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .