R. P. SETHI, C. J, J. ( 1 ) RELYING upon the judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Commissioner v Narayanappa, the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent 2, dated 5-3-1990 by which levy of conversion fine has been imposed upon him while deciding his application in terms of Section 95 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1965, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is contended that the amendment made in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act vide Act No. 2 of 1991 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Alternatively it is submitted that as the Amending Act has not validated the earlier actions taken under the unamended Section 95 of the Act, the same do not affect rights of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that, the petitioner who is the owner of land measuring 1 acre in Block No. 333/2 of Bhairadevarakoppa in Hubli Taluk, filed an application under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act for conversion which was disposed of by the impugned order after demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,890/- as conversion fine. The said amount of fine was deposited on 9-3-1990. The petitioner claims to have subsequently known that no order of conversion was necessary in view of the judgment in special Deputy Commissioner's case, supra, and the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country planning Act. He applied for refund of the amount which was rejected by the respondents vide annexure-B. It is contended that the respondents were not empowered to collect any amount from the petitioners or any other citizens under the then prevalent law. ( 3 ) WHILE interpreting the unamended Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this Court in Narayanappa's case, supra, held: "therefore the question which arises for consideration is whether the Special Deputy commissioner had any power at all to accord permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act. The Chapter III (Sections 9 to 13) of the Planning Act provides for the preparation of an Outline Development Plan for every local planning area declared as such under the provisions of the Act. The Chapter III (Sections 9 to 13) of the Planning Act provides for the preparation of an Outline Development Plan for every local planning area declared as such under the provisions of the Act. After the Bangalore Metropolitan area was declared as local planning area under the provisions of the Act, steps were taken to prepare an Outline Development Plan and after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 13, the Outline Development Plan was finally published as required under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act on 22-5-1972 as found in the case of M. D. Narayan. Section 14 of the Act as in force which is a crucial matter for this case reads: "14. Enforcement of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations: (1) On and from the date of which a declaration of intention to prepare an outline is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10, every land-use, every change in the 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 sub-section (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. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section: (a) the expression 'development' means the carrying out of building or other operation in or over or under any land or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land; (b) the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve a development of any building or land, namely. (i) the carrying out of works for maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building; (ii) the carrying out of works in compliance with any order, or direction made by any authority under any law for the time being in force; (iii) the carrying out of works by any authority in exercise of its powers under any law for the time being in force; (iv) the use of any building or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling-house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling-house as such; (v) when the normal use of land which was being temporarily used for any other purpose on the day on which the declaration of intention to prepare the Outline Development Plan is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is resumed. (3) Every application for permission under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a plan, drawn to scale showing the actual dimension of the plot of land in respect of which permission is asked, the size of the building to be erected and the position of the building upon the plot and such other information as may be required in this behalf by the Planning Authority". The language of Section 14 of the Act is peremptory. According to that provision no change in the land use in respect of land falling within the area of Outline Development Plan can be made without the written permission of the Planning Authority secured under Section 14 of the Act. Subsequently, Comprehensive Development Plan ('cdp' for short) has also been prepared and approved by the Government on 12-10-1984 and as required by Section 23 of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated 18th October, 1984. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act reads: " (1) The provision of Sections 14, 15 and 16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the enforcement of the Comprehensive Development Plan". In view of the above provision a written permission for change of land use in respect of land falling within the Bangalore City Planning Area and covered by the CDP is mandatory. This subsequent notification also ousts the authority of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act in respect of lands falling within the Planning Area". In view of the above provision a written permission for change of land use in respect of land falling within the Bangalore City Planning Area and covered by the CDP is mandatory. This subsequent notification also ousts the authority of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act in respect of lands falling within the Planning Area". ( 4 ) AFTER the judgment was pronounced, Section 95 was amended vide Act No. 2 of 1991 providing that if any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture wished to divert that land or any part thereof to any other purpose he shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force apply for permission to the Deputy commissioner who may, subject to the provisions of this section and the rules made under the act, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit. It is worthwhile to mention that the words 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force' were specifically incorporated apparently in view of the judgment of this Court in Special deputy Commissioner's case, supra. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is not justified in asserting that the amendment could not be made retrospective in its operation w. e. f. 15-1-1965 as was done vide Act No. 2 of 1991. The argument is without any substance in view of the settled position of law to the effect that the legislature was the best Judge of the need of the people which can manifest its intention from time to time through amendment, substitution and omission considering the social and economic conditions in view. The Court resort to such interpretation and construction which is reasonable and purposive to make the provisions meaningful in consonance of the object sought to be achieved by the Act enacted by the legislature. While interpreting Section 292 of the then Constitution, the Federal Court in United provinces v Mst. Atiqa Begum and Others, has held that within their own sphere the powers of the State Legislatures were as large and ample as those of Parliament itself, and burden of proving that they were subject to a strange and unusual prohibition against retrospective legislation lay upon those who assert it. Atiqa Begum and Others, has held that within their own sphere the powers of the State Legislatures were as large and ample as those of Parliament itself, and burden of proving that they were subject to a strange and unusual prohibition against retrospective legislation lay upon those who assert it. In Rai Ramkrishna and Others v State of Bihar , the power of the Legislature to enact law retrospectively was considered and it was held: ". . . the legislative power conferred on the appropriate Legislatures to enact law in respect of topics covered by the several entries in the three Lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Where the Legislature can make a valid law, it may provide not only for the prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions. Similarly, there is no doubt that the legislative power in question includes the subsidiary or the auxiliary power to validate laws which have been found to be invalid. If a law passed by a Legislature is struck down by the Courts as being invalid for one infirmity or another, it would be competent to the appropriate Legislature to cure the said infirmity and pass a validating law so as to make the provisions of the said earlier law effective from the date when it was passed". ( 5 ) IN Jawaharmal v State of Rajasthan , this position of law was again reiterated and it was held that the power to legislate includes power to legislate prospectively, as well as retrospectively. ( 6 ) IN M/s. J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh, the power of the legislature in that context was examined and it was held: "the power of a Legislature to enact a law with reference to a topic entrusted to it, is, as already stated, unqualified subject only to any limitation imposed by the Constitution. In the exercise of such a power, it will be competent for the legislature to enact a law, which is either prospective or retrospective. In the exercise of such a power, it will be competent for the legislature to enact a law, which is either prospective or retrospective. In Union of India v Madan Gopal, it was held by this Court that the power to impose tax on income under Entry 82 of List I in Schedule VII to the Constitution, comprehend the power to impose income-tax with retrospective operation even for a period prior to the constitution. The position will be the same as regards laws imposing tax on sale of goods. In m. P. V. Sundararamier and Company v State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court had occasion to consider the validity of a law enacted by Parliament giving retrospective operation to laws passed by the State Legislature imposing a tax on certain sales in the course of inter-State trade. One of the contentions raised against the validity of this legislation was that having regard to the terms of Article 286 (2) the retrospective legislation was not within the competence of parliament. In rejecting this contention, the Court observed. "article 286 (2) merely provides that no law of a State shall impose tax on inter-State Sales 'except insofar as Parliament may by law otherwise provide'. It places no restrictions on the nature of the law to be passed by Parliament. On the other hand, the words insofar as clearly leave it to Parliament to decide on the form and nature of the law to be enacted by it. What is material to observe is that the power conferred on Parliament under Article 286 (2) is a legislative power, and such a power conferred on a Sovereign Legislature carry with it authority to enact a law either prospectively or retrospectively, unless there can be found in the Constitution itself a limitation on that power". And it was held that the law was within the competence of the legislature. We must therefore hold that the Validation Act is not ultra vires the powers of the legislature under Entry 54, for the reason that it operates retrospectively". ( 7 ) IT is acknowledged position of law that the legislature have plenary powers of legislation within the field of legislature entrusted to them but subject to certain constitutional restrictions as specified in Part III of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IT is acknowledged position of law that the legislature have plenary powers of legislation within the field of legislature entrusted to them but subject to certain constitutional restrictions as specified in Part III of the Constitution. ( 8 ) A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s. United Riceland Limited and another v State of Haryana and Others, it was held: "if the object of an amending statute is to remove and rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna of other nature and to validate the proceedings under an earlier Act even found by the Court to be vitiated by some infirmity, such an Amending and Validating Act in effect and in essence has the retrospective operation having the aim to effectuate and carryout the object for which the earlier Principal Act was amended and modified. Such an Amending and Validating Act which is intended to make, 'small repairs' is a permissible mode of legislation and is frequently resorted to in fiscal enactments". ( 9 ) THERE is therefore no illegality or unconstitutionally in the Amending Act No. 2 of 1991 by which its operation has been made retrospective w. e. f. 15-1-1965. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel in the alternative submitted that as no provision has been made in the amending Act for validating actions of the authorities taken before the amendment, the action of the respondent was contrary to law and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. This submission also is without any substance inasmuch as under the circumstances there was no necessity of making any provision for validating the acts done by the authorities under the Act. The effect of the retrospective amendment is obvious. The jurisdiction and power of the Deputy commissioner for granting conversion upon conditions has been made retrospectively notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. Even if the plea of the learned Counsel is accepted, no useful purpose would be served in the instant case. The acceptance of the writ petition would necessitate the remand of the case to the Deputy commissioner for fresh orders according to law. Fresh orders at this stage admittedly authorise the Deputy Commissioner to demand such amount as he determines as conversion fee as the passing of the order under Section 95 is subject to the conditions as are thought fit by him. Fresh orders at this stage admittedly authorise the Deputy Commissioner to demand such amount as he determines as conversion fee as the passing of the order under Section 95 is subject to the conditions as are thought fit by him. It is not disputed that in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court does not issue futile writs. ( 11 ) THERE is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Rule issued is discharged.