Judgment :- 1. Petitioners have sought for a declaration that the Master Plan, 2021 dated 27.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 vide Annexures-‘K’ and ‘K1’, the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure- ‘M’ dated 27.1.2009 and the Gazette Notification dated 29.1.2009 vide Annexure- ‘N’, as null and void in so far as they relate to the designation of the lands, bearing Survey Nos. 62, 65, 55, 3 acres in 64, 102/1, 103/1, 49, 104/1, 105/1, 104/3, 100, 50, 101/1, 2, 3 and 102/2, totally measuring 41 acres 16 guntas, situated at Hegganahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, belonging to the petitioners for agricultural use. 2. The State Government constituted Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Authority’ for short) on 12.1.1996 and the Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority was provisionally approved by the State Government and the same was published on 30th September 2004. The aforementioned lands were converted for non-agricultural purposes i.e., for residential purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Act’ for short) on 22.12.2004, 1.2.2005, 23.2.2005 and 30.3.2005. No Objection Certificate was issued by Karnataka Pollution Control Board. However, the application filed by the petitioners for grant of approval for formation of residential layout was rejected by issuing endorsements dated 7.10.05 and 20.10.2005. The petitioners made another application for grant of approval for formation of residential layout on 25.4.2006. The same also came to be rejected on 22.6.2006. Such orders of the rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for formation of residential layout were questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7487/2006 and connected matters. The same came to be disposed of by observing thus: “Para-4: The petitioners’ applications for sanction of layout plan / industrial use were required to be considered in the light of the final Master Plan to be notified under the Act by the Bangalore International airport Planning Authority- the Planning Authority for the area in question constituted under the Act and not on the basis of the Provisional Outline Development Plan. Para-5: Learned Advocate General submits that the orders impugned require a relook in accordance with the ‘Master Plan’ to be notified by the Planning Authority. Para-5: Learned Advocate General submits that the orders impugned require a relook in accordance with the ‘Master Plan’ to be notified by the Planning Authority. According to the learned Advocate General, the orders impugned are unsustainable and if granted reasonable time, the authorities would reconsider the petitioners’ applications and consider the petitioner’s application in W.P.No.2881/2006 in accordance with the master plan to be notified on or before 30-01-2009, and pass orders thereon. Para-6: Recording the submission of the learned Advocate General, nothing further survives for consideration in these petitions and are accordingly disposed of. Time for compliance is fixed at 2 months from 30th January 2009.” 3. The Master Plan, 2021 is approved by the 2nd respondent designating the lands in question for agricultural purposes on 27.1.2009 as per Annexure-‘M’. A Corrigendum was issued on 29th January 2009 to the Master Plan making certain clarifications as per Annexure-’N’ on 29th January 2009. As aforementioned, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent in designating the lands in question in the Master Plan for agricultural purposes. 4. It is contended by Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the provisional Master Plan dated 17.9.2004 cannot be enforced in law, inasmuch as, it is not a Master Plan in the eyes of law. According to him, only the Master Plan which is finally approved by the State Government is entitled to be enforced in law. The second contention of the, learned counsel is that the petitioners are discriminated by the respondents in the matter of designating the lands in question for agricultural purposes, inasmuch as, the adjoining lands are designated for residential purposes. 5. Sri. The second contention of the, learned counsel is that the petitioners are discriminated by the respondents in the matter of designating the lands in question for agricultural purposes, inasmuch as, the adjoining lands are designated for residential purposes. 5. Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners elaborating the aforementioned contentions submitted the BIAAPA is constituted on 12.1.1996 and that therefore, the master Plan should have been prepared by the Planning Authority i.e., 2nd respondent herein within two years as mandated under Section 9 of Karnataka Town Planning & Country Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Act’ for short); that the provisional Master Plan was prepared and published after eight years by the Planning Authority; that the Master Plan was finally approved by the State Government after about four and half years from the date of publication of the provisional Master Plan, which according to him, is highly belated, hence illegal; that respondent No.2 has approved certain of the residential layouts though such layouts were formed after publication of the provisional Master Plan; that the adjoining lands of the petitioners were designated for residential purposes and whereas, the lands in question are designated for agricultural purposes; that the State Government has not applied its mind while approving the Master Plan proposed in BIAAPA He further submitted that no objection is also issued by the Airport Authority of India on 5.4.2005. Per contra, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate General taking me through the various provisions of Planning Act opposed the writ petitions by contending that none of the residential layouts which are formed after publication of the provisional Master Plan are approved as alleged by the petitioners; that merely because conversion orders are passed in favour of the petitioners subsequent to publication of provisional Master Plan would not ipso facto entitle the petitioners to get approval from the Planning Authority; that the application for permission filed by the petitioners is required to be considered by the Planning Authority as per the law, then existing at the time of filing of the application; that no malice can be attached against the respondents in publishing the Master Plan; that certain portions of lands which already developed prior to publication of the provisional Master Plan are designated for residential purposes, and hence the same cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners; that the Planning Authority after holding detailed spot inspection and survey has prepared the Master Plan and the State Government has approved the same finally on due application of mind; and that the petitioners are not discriminated in designating their lands for agricultural purposes. 6. Sri. S.G. Pandit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent opposed the writ petitions supporting the contentions of the learned Advocate General. He also vehemently argued opposing the contentions of the petitioners that they are discriminated. He reiterated the submissions made by learned Advocate General by contending that the Master Plan for prepared based on fact situation with application of mind. 7. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is beneficial to certain provisions of the Planning Act and Revenue Act. Section 9 of the Planning Act reveals that the Planning Authority shall prepare and publish in the prescribed manner a Master Plan for such area and submit the same to the State Government for provisional approval after carrying out the survey of the area within two years from the date of declaration of the local planning area. If the Master Plan is not prepared, published and submitted to the State Government by the Planning Authority within the period of two years, the State Government may authorise the Director of Town Planning to prepare and publish such plan in the prescribed manner. If the Master Plan is not prepared, published and submitted to the State Government by the Planning Authority within the period of two years, the State Government may authorise the Director of Town Planning to prepare and publish such plan in the prescribed manner. Prior to carrying out the survey of the area for preparing the Master Plan under Section 9 of the Planning Act, the Planning Authority shall make a declaration of its intention to prepare such plan, showing the boundaries of the entire area proposed to be included in the Master Plan. Such declaration shall be sent to State Government. The Planning Authority has to notify of such declaration in the Official Gazette and in one or more local news papers calling for suggestions from the public within a period of 60 days. Section 12 of the Planning Act deals with the contents of the Master Plan and the contents include proposals for zoning of the land use, such as for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural recreation, educational and etc., a complete street pattern indicating major and minor roads, national highways and State highways etc., It shall also include areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions and the area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for new civic developments and the areas earmarked for future development and expansion. Section 13 of the Planning Act reveals that the State Government after making such modifications as it deems fit shall return the Master Plan to the Planning Authority, which shall thereupon publish by notification the Master Plan inviting public opinion within 60 days from the date of publication. If any member of the public communicates in writing any comment on the plan to the Planning Authority, the Planning Authority shall consider such comments and re-submit the plan and the reports to the State Government. After receiving the plan and the report, the State Government will give its final approval to the plan with such modifications as the Director may advise under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Thus, the final approval of the Master Plan will be accorded under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. After receiving the plan and the report, the State Government will give its final approval to the plan with such modifications as the Director may advise under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Thus, the final approval of the Master Plan will be accorded under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Section 14 (1) of the planning Act clarifies that every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to Section 14-A, from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare the Master Plan is published under Section 10(1) shall conform to the provisions of the Planning Act, the Master Plan and the report as finally approved by the State Government under Section 13(3) of the Planning Act. It is also relevant to note the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which reads thus: “Section 95: Uses of agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricultural land for the other purpose: (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) If any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose he shall (not withstanding 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 this Act, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not refuse permission for diversion of such land included in the Master Plan published under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), if such diversion is in accordance with the purpose of land use specified in respect of the land in such plan; XXX XXXX XXX” 8. From the above, more particularly from Section 14(1) of Planning Act, it is clear that every change in the land use and every development in the area made from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare a Master Plan is published under Section 10 (1) of the Planning Act, shall conform not only to the provisions of the Planning Act, but also the Master Plan from the finally approved by the State Government. Any development prior to approval of the Master Plan from the date of provisional Master Plan will be subject to the Master Plan finally approved by the State Government. 9. It is not doubt true that conversion orders are passed in favour of the petitioners permitting the petitioners to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose i.e., for residential purposes as per Annexures-‘E-1’ to ‘E-6’ after publishing of the declaration under Section 10(1) of the Planning Act. Merely because the conversion orders are issued by the Revenue Authority under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioners cannot claim that the Planning Authority i.e., BIAAPA should permit them to form the layout pursuant to the conversion orders. The Planning Authority has to strictly proceed as per the provisions of the Planning Act and the Master Plan. The Planning Act provides for regulation of planned growth of land use and development for making and execution of the town planning schemes of the State Government. Having felt it necessary and expedient to create conditions which are favourable for planning and replanning of the urban and rural areas in the State, with a view to provide full civic and social amenities for the people in the State, to stop uncontrolled development of land due to land speculation and profiteering in land, to preserve and improve existing recreational facilities and other amenities contributing towards balanced use of land and to direct the future growth of populated areas in the State with a view to ensuring desirable standards of environmental health and hygiene and creating facilities for the orderly growth of industry and commerce, and thereby promoting general standards of living in the State, has brought at the planning Enactment. Separate Planning Authority is created for Bangalore International Airport Area in order to regulate the development in the said area keeping in mind the health, security and safety of the air traffic and the like. The Planning Authority in its wisdom has earmarked or designated certain of the areas for agricultural purposes and certain of the areas for residential purposes etc, This Court while dealing with the writ petition cannot act as an Appellate Authority to reconsider the decision of the Planning Authority to come to a different conclusion. The experts in the field have prepared the Master Plan keeping in mind the object with which the Enactment is made. The experts in the field have prepared the Master Plan keeping in mind the object with which the Enactment is made. Hence, no motives can be attached to the respondents. 10. As aforementioned, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7487/2006 & connected matters for quashing the orders of rejection of their applications seeking permission to form layout and prayed for approval of the layout. The petitioners in those writ petitions had prayed for approval of the residential layout. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 18th December 2008 as mentioned above in para-2 of this order. While disposing of the writ petitions, this Court observed that the applications of the petitioners for sanction of layout plan are required to be considered in the light of final Master Plan to be notified under the Planning Act by the Planning Authority and not on the basis of provisional plan. Since the Master Plan was not finally approved then, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to reconsider the applications of the petitioners after finalisation of the Master Plan. The aforementioned order of this Court dated 18th December 2008 is confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.999/2009 on 17.6.2009. As the aforementioned observations of the learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 7487/2006 & connected matters are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and have attained finality, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the development which has taken place during the period in between the provisional Master Plan and final Master Plan will have to be regularised. 11. Moreover, sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Planning Act makes it amply clear that, on and from the date on which the declaration of intention to prepare the Master Plan is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Planning Act, 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 the Planning Act, Master Plan and the report as finally approved by the State Government. Thus, it is amply clear that the every development and every change in land use made in between the period between the provisional Master Plan and the final Master Plan shall conform not only to the provisions of the Planning Act, but also to the final Master Plan. Thus, it is amply clear that the every development and every change in land use made in between the period between the provisional Master Plan and the final Master Plan shall conform not only to the provisions of the Planning Act, but also to the final Master Plan. Meaning thereby, if the change in land use made in favour of the petitioners is contrary to the final Master Plan, such conversion orders cannot be made use of by the petitioners, inasmuch as, the Planning Authority will not allow any development contrary to the Master Plan finally approved. 12. Admittedly, in this matter, the lands in question are designated for agricultural use not only in provisional Master Plan, but also in final Master Plan. They are not designated for residential use. If it is so, the petitioners prayer for grant of approval of the layout plan cannot and will not be granted since the prayer runs contrary to the Master Plan. As aforementioned, the petitioners cannot take shelter under the conversion orders for getting approval of the residential layout by the Planning Authority. The conversion orders are subject to final Master Plan. Since the Master Plan does not provide for forming any residential layout over the lands which are designated for agricultural purpose, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of permission to form layout cannot be granted. 13. In view of the above, this Court concludes that the provisional Master Plan can be enforced in law and any developmental activity which has taken place after provisional Master Plan would be subject to the final Master Plan. 14. So also, this Court does not find any ground to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are discriminated in the matter of designating their lands for agricultural purposes. The Master Plan could be prepared based on fact situation. Mala fides cannot be alleged against the respondents. It is clarified by learned Advocate General that certain portions of land over which the development had already taken place prior to the declaration made by the authority under Section 10(1) of the Planning Act are designated for residential purposes. According to the State, in State, in those areas, the residential houses have already come up and are existing for years and that they will be treated as residential areas. There is nothing on record to controvert the said submission. 15. According to the State, in State, in those areas, the residential houses have already come up and are existing for years and that they will be treated as residential areas. There is nothing on record to controvert the said submission. 15. Keeping in mind the intention with which the Planning Act is enacted, the Planning Authority prepares the plan in the interest of general public. There will have to be boundary line somewhere, to mark the zones such as agricultural zone, residential zone etc., The boundaries will be fixed on the basis of actual fact situation and not on whims and fancies of any person or organization. Merely because the petitioners’ lands are designated for agricultural purposes, it cannot be said that they are discriminated. In the absence of any concrete material in support of the said contention relating to discrimination, this Court declines to accept the said contention. Moreover, on going through the materials, this Court finds that the petitioners are not discriminated. 16. The judgment in the case of T. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS –VS- TOWN PLANNING MEMBER AND ANOTHER {( 2006 8 SCC 502 }, relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners may not to applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, in the said case, the agricultural lands were falling under the residential zone under the then existing development plan and hence the land owner was permitted to use the same for residential purposes. He filed an application for approval of the building plan before the Planning Authority, which came to be rejected on the premise that the property fell within the valley zone in the proposed comprehensive plan. But the new comprehensive plan was not notified by them. In that context, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of new comprehensive plan, it may not be proper on the part of the Planning Authority to reject the prayer of the applicant therein for grant of building permission. In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, conversion orders are passed in favour of the petitioners after publication of the provisional Master Plan. Which means, the Master Plan was already published prior to passing of the conversion orders and prior to petitioners filing application for grant of permission to form the layout. 17. In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, conversion orders are passed in favour of the petitioners after publication of the provisional Master Plan. Which means, the Master Plan was already published prior to passing of the conversion orders and prior to petitioners filing application for grant of permission to form the layout. 17. Moreover, in the very judgment Apex Court has ruled that an application for grant of permission for construction of the building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on that day on which such permission is to be granted. The applications were filed by the petitioners after the provisional Master Plan, which had designated the area in question for agricultural purpose. In view of the same, the permission sought for by the petitioners could not have been granted and cannot be granted. 18. The judgment in the case of CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN –VSPURE INDUSTRIAL COKE & CHEMICALS LTD., AND OTHERS ( (2007) 8 SCC 705 ) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners also is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as the conclusion reached by the Apex Court in the said judgment was after considering the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The matters in question have to be decided keeping in mind the provisions of Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act. In the said matter of Madhya Pradesh State, the planning statute does not provide for enforcement of draft development plan. Whereas, in the matter on hand, as is clear from Section 14(1) of the Planning Act of Karnataka, any conversion order or any development made after the draft development plan and the provisional Master plan should conform to the final Master Plan. Which means, Planning Act specifically provides enforcement of provisional Master Plan. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the prayers of the petitioners. Petitions fail and the same are dismissed.