Judgment 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.68630/2011 is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.116/1 measuring 36 guntas situated at Belgaum. The Comprehensive Development Plan (‘CDP’ for short) in respect of Belgaum City was published by the concerned planning Authority in the official Gazette on 13.1.1994. In the CDP, the land in question was earmarked and designated as open space. The said opens pace was not acquired for a period of five years from the date of publication of the CDP. The petitioner made an application before the planning Authority praying for permission to utilize the land for residential purpose.The planning Authority acting under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) permitted the petitioner to utilize the land bearing Sy.No.116/1 for residential purpose since the designation assigned to the land in question has lapsed after five years. Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land for residential purpose. The said application came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 23.12.2008. The petitioner filed Appeal No.134/2009 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal questioning the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application praying for conversion. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed the order in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-C dated 19.10.2010 (in W.P. No.68630/2011) and directed Respondent No.2 to accept the conversion fee from the petitioner and grant the order of conversion. The said order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is questioned by the State in Writ Petition No. 66968/2011. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner once again approached the Deputy Commissioner with a prayer to grant order of conversion. Such application is rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-D (in W.P. No.68630/2011) on 5.11.2011 on the ground that the permission of the State Government is necessary for conversion of the land as per the Circular bearing No.66/2010 dated 6.3.2010. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is called in question in Writ Petition No.68630/2011. 2. Since both the writ petition arise out of the common facts, the writ petitions are connected and heard and decided jointly. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is called in question in Writ Petition No.68630/2011. 2. Since both the writ petition arise out of the common facts, the writ petitions are connected and heard and decided jointly. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. It is also not in dispute that the land in question was designated as open area in the CDP by the planning Authority as per Section 12(3) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the said property is not acquired within the period of five years from the date of designation. The records reveal that the designation has come into force w.e.f. 13.1.1994, on which date the CDP was gazetted. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the provisions of Section 69(1) of the Act after five years from 13.1.1994. It is relevant to note the provisions of Section-69(1) and (2) of the Act, which read thus: “69. Acquisition of land designated for certain purposes in a Master plan:- (1) The planning Authority may acquire any land designated in a Master plan for specified purpose in clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12, or for any public purpose out of those specified land in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), as in force in the State. If the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provisions of said Act as amended by Section 72 of the Act shall apply to the determination of compensation for the acquisition of such land. (2) If the designated land, except land specified for the purpose in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section12, is not acquired by agreement within five years from the date, the Master plan is published in the gazette under sub-section (4) of Section 13 or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period the designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed”. (Emphasis supplied) 4. (Emphasis supplied) 4. A bare reading of the provision contained in Sec 69 (2) of the Act makes it clear that if the designated land is not acquired by agreement within five years from the date, the master plan is published in the gazette under sub-section (4) of Section-13 or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, the designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed. So the lapsing of designation is automatic after the lapse of five years. In the matter on hand, there is neither agreement between the parties for acquisition of the land in question nor the proceeding had taken place under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land. Therefore the designation lapses after a period of five years. If it is so, it is open for the petitioner to utilize the said land for the residential purpose, the purpose for which the neighbouring lands are earmarked in the master plan. Undisputedly, the neighbouring lands are in the residential zone. Since the designation has lapsed, it is open for the petitioner to utilize the same for the residential purpose. 5. It is argued on behalf of the Government Advocate as well as on behalf of the respondent – authority that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to take permission of the State Government under Section 14-A of the Act. Such submission cannot be accepted. The provisions of Section 14-A cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner is not seeking change of land use from the master plan. The area in question remains in the residential zone. He is not seeking change of land use from residential zone to any other zone. It is not a change of land use from master plan as such. The provisions of Section 14-A if read along with the provision of Section 12(c) and Section 69(2) of the Act harmoniously, one can clearly conclude that the designation attached to the land in question lapses. Though the land continues to be under the residential zone, the character of the land as the “open space” vanishes. Therefore it is not necessary for the petitioner to take permission of the State Government under Section 14-A of the Act. Though the land continues to be under the residential zone, the character of the land as the “open space” vanishes. Therefore it is not necessary for the petitioner to take permission of the State Government under Section 14-A of the Act. If the argument of the respondent that the permission of the State Government is necessary under Section 14-A of the Act is to be accepted, then the same renders the provisions of Section-69(2) of the Act otiose or redundant. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent relied upon the Circular dated 6.3.2010 issued by the State Government to contend that the permission of the State Government is necessary under Section 14-A of the Act. The Circular dated 6.3.2010 making it mandatory to obtain the permission of the State Government while issuing the order under Section 69(2) of the Act runs contrary to the Act more particularly Sec.69 (2). Therefore the said Circular cannot have force of law. The Circulars issued by the State Government should not run contrary to the enactment. If the Circular runs contrary to the enactment, the same may not be made use of by any of the parties. Therefore the Circular dated 6.3.2010 cannot be taken advantage of by the respondent. However, it is also relevant to note that the State Government itself had issued earlier the Circular on 22.12.2005 aptly clarifying that the provisions of Section 14-A cannot be made applicable to the cases arising under Section 69(2) of the Act. 7. Learned Government Advocate relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of STATE of KARNATAKA .vs -JAYASHREE report in ILR 1986 KAR 820 to contend that sanction of the planning Authority is necessary for grant of permission under Section-95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, the planning Authority has already granted sanction in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 3.9.2007 vide Annexure-A in Writ petition No.68630/2011. If it is so, there is no question of petitioner seeking permission of the planning Authority once again. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the reasons mentioned supra, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified and the same will not be interfered with. If it is so, there is no question of petitioner seeking permission of the planning Authority once again. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the reasons mentioned supra, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified and the same will not be interfered with. Hence Writ Petition No.66968/2011 filed by the State is liable to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. So also the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-D dated 5.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.68630/2011 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed. The Deputy Commissioner shall consider the application filed by the petitioner for conversion in the light of the observations made during the course of this judgment. Hence Writ Petition No.68630/2011 is allowed and Writ petition No.66968/2011 stands dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.