JUDGMENT : P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J. 1. Appellants in these appeals have challenged the common order dated 27.7.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.Ps. No. 105400-402/2015 & connected cases. 2. Heard Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.H. Angadi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. Appellants are joint owners of agricultural property measuring 4 acres 34 guntas in survey No. 80/2 of Tadasinakoppa village, Dharwad Taluk. The Master Plan under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) was notified in the official Gazette dated 20.11.2003. In the said Master Plan, appellants' land fell within the 'agricultural zone' (green belt area). 4. Appellants applied to the second respondent for permission to use their land for residential purpose on the ground that the designation of the appellants' land falling under agriculture zone had lapsed in view of section 69(2) of the Act. As the said application was not considered, the appellants presented a Writ Petition No. 84022/2013. This Court vide order dated 20.12.2013, directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders within three months therefrom. As no action was taken by the respondents, the appellants moved this Court in C.C.C. No. 100036/2015. The respondents produced an endorsement dated 2.6.2015 stating that the request for change of land use was rejected as the land in question was falling under agricultural zone or green belt area. The said endorsement was challenged in the instant writ petitions. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. 5. The respondents produced an endorsement dated 2.6.2015 stating that the request for change of land use was rejected as the land in question was falling under agricultural zone or green belt area. The said endorsement was challenged in the instant writ petitions. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. 5. Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants made following submissions: (i) under Section 69(1) of the Act, the respondent-planning authority had an option to acquire appellants' land within a period of five years from the date of publication of Master Plan in the Gazette; (ii) since the planning authority has not chosen to exercise it's option to acquire appellants' land, by operation of law, by virtue of the deemed fiction contained in Section 69(2) of the Act, the designation of the land as 'agricultural land' stood lapsed; (iii) once the designation stood lapsed, the appellants would be automatically entitled to enjoy the lands as agricultural land and seek conversion under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act; (iv) resultantly, the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act would have no application to the facts of this case. Consequently, the impugned endorsement dated 2.6.2015 is unsustainable in law. 6. In sum and substance, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that their lands were 'designated' as agriculture lands. The said designation lapsed by efflux of time as the Planning Authority failed to acquire the land and therefore, appellants shall be entitled to seek conversion to residential purpose without obtaining permission for change of land use under Sec. 14-A of the Act. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Authority made following submissions:- (i) that contents of Master Plan are defined under Section 12(1) of the Act; (ii) Section 12(1)(a) deals with zoning of land use for residential and other purposes. Section 12(1)(b) deals with street pattern indicating road and other purposes; Section 12(1)(c) deals with areas reserved for parks, play grounds, etc.; Section 12(1)(d) deals with area earmarked for future development and expansion; (iii) once the Master Plan is approved by the Government and published in the official gazette, land use and development in the area should be in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Any change of land use can be made only after obtaining necessary permission under Section 14-A; (iv) under Section 69(1) of the Act, Planning Authority may exercise its option to acquire any land classified in the master plan specified for the purposes mentioned in clause (b), (c) or (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12; (v) lands specified in Clause (a) of the said provision, may also be acquired if required for public purpose; (vi) that if the Planning Authority chooses not to exercise its option to acquire any land falling under Clause 12(b), the same shall not be affected by the deeming provision contained in Section 69(2) of the Act. However, if the Planning Authority chooses not to acquire any land falling within Clause (c) or (d), within a period of five years from the date of notification in the gazette, only then, by operation of the deeming provision contained in Section 69(2), the designation of the land shall lapse; (vii) lands falling under Clause 12(a), which are notified for public purpose shall be affected by the deeming provision, if they are not acquired within the specified period of five years. In case of other lands similar to the one belonging to the appellants, which are not notified for any public purpose, the deeming provision shall not apply as they were not designated for any public purpose. 8. In sum and substance, the stand of the respondent - planning authority is that once the Master Plan is notified, the use of land shall be brought in conformity with Section 14 of the Act. However, any change in the land use may be obtained by taking recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. With these submissions, learned Counsel for the second respondent prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 9. Shri C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate adopting the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent also prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether appellants' land was designated for any public purpose under any provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act? (2) Whether the Planning Authority was duty bound to acquire the land belonging to the appellants? 10. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether appellants' land was designated for any public purpose under any provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act? (2) Whether the Planning Authority was duty bound to acquire the land belonging to the appellants? (3) Whether appellants can use the land for any purpose other than agriculture without obtaining permission under Section 14-A of the Act? 11. In order to appreciate the purport and intent of legislature in enacting the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, it's scope and application, it is expedient to scan through certain relevant provisions. A careful perusal of the Act reveals that it has been enacted to vest power with the local planning authorities to prepare a proper developmental plan for the area within its jurisdiction to ensure that town planning schemes are made in a proper perspective and their execution is made effective. Planning area is described as an 'area' declared to be included in the local planning area' under the Act. Master Plan is defined as a plan for development or redevelopment of the area falling within the jurisdiction of Planning Authority. 12. Under Section 5 of the Act, the State Government notifies the date with reference to which the exact use of any land has to be determined. Under Section 6, Planning Authority prepares a map showing the present land use and it shall be displayed for public information. Under Section 7, the owners of land shall have an opportunity to apply to the authority for any entry of land use or other particulars in the map for correction. On receipt of such applications by the members of public, the Planning Authority after enquiry, orders for such correction as deemed necessary. Such order is subject to appeal before the prescribed authority and if no authority is prescribed then to the Government. The decision of the prescribed authority or the State Government in this behalf shall become final. 13. Thereafter, the planning authority shall carry out the survey of the planning area under Section 9 of the Act. Before such survey, under Section 10, the Planning Authority shall make a declaration of it's intention to prepare a plan. The decision of the prescribed authority or the State Government in this behalf shall become final. 13. Thereafter, the planning authority shall carry out the survey of the planning area under Section 9 of the Act. Before such survey, under Section 10, the Planning Authority shall make a declaration of it's intention to prepare a plan. It shall publish a notice of such declaration in the official gazette and in one or more local newspapers in the prescribed manner calling for suggestions from the public within sixty days. If any suggestions are received by any member of public, Planning Authority shall consider them and make suitable modifications. A copy of the plan showing the boundaries of the area included in the Master Plan is kept open for public inspection in the office of the Planning Authority. The Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority shall contain the details specified in Section 12 of the Act, which reads as follows:- 12. A copy of the plan showing the boundaries of the area included in the Master Plan is kept open for public inspection in the office of the Planning Authority. The Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority shall contain the details specified in Section 12 of the Act, which reads as follows:- 12. Contents off Master Plan.-(1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for the following, namely:- (a) zoning of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations; (b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and minor roads, national highways, and state highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future requirements with proposals for improvements; (c) areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions and area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for new civic developments; (d) areas earmarked for future development and expansion; (e) reservation of land for the purposes of Central Government, the State Government, Planning Authority or public utility undertaking or any other authority established by Law, and the designation of lands being subject to acquisition for public purposes or as specified in Master Plan or securing the use of the landing in the manner provided by or under this Act; (f) declaring certain areas, as areas of special control and development in such areas being subject to such regulations as may be made in regard to building line, height of the building, floor area ratio, architectural features and such other particulars as may be prescribed; (g) stages by which the plan is to be carried out. (underlining and highlighting is by us) 14. On receipt of the Master Plan and the Reports from the Planning Authority, State Government after making such modifications as may be advised by the Director, shall return the 'Master Plan' and 'Reports' to the Planning Authority and the same shall be published by Notification inviting public comments within sixty days. If any communications/comments are received from the public, the Planning Authority shall re-submit the 'Master Plan' and 'Reports' to the Government with it's recommendation for modification. If any communications/comments are received from the public, the Planning Authority shall re-submit the 'Master Plan' and 'Reports' to the Government with it's recommendation for modification. Thereafter under Section 13(3) of the Act, the State Government in consultation with the Director, shall give their final approval. Under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Planning Authority shall publish the 'Master Plan' and the 'Reports' as finally approved by the State Government. The Master Plan and the Reports shall be permanently displayed in the office of the Director. 15. A sequential reading of Sections 5 to 14 would make it clear that a Planning Authority is enjoined with a duty to prepare a 'Master Plan' and the same after due approval by the State Government shall be an enforceable document. Every land use shall be brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Master Plan and the Reports. Change in land use, if any, can be made only by taking recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. 16. It is the contention of the appellant that the Planning Authority and the Government have 'designated' their land under 'Agriculture Zone' or the 'green belt area'. The Planning Authority had an option but to acquire the same within five years from the date of publication of the Master Plan in the Gazette. Since the Planning Authority has not exercised its option to acquire the land under Section 69(1) of the Act, the designation stood lapsed by the deeming fiction contained in Section 69(2) of the Act. 17. At the outset, it is to be noted that the appellants have misconstrued the concept of 'designation'. The word designation is not defined under the definition clauses contained in Section 2 of the Act. However, the dictionary meaning of the word 'designate' and 'designation' are as follows: per The Chambers Dictionary-10th Edition: Designate: to mark out so as to make known; to show, indicate; to name; to be a name or label form; to appoint or nominate. The word designation is not defined under the definition clauses contained in Section 2 of the Act. However, the dictionary meaning of the word 'designate' and 'designation' are as follows: per The Chambers Dictionary-10th Edition: Designate: to mark out so as to make known; to show, indicate; to name; to be a name or label form; to appoint or nominate. Designation: showing or pointing out; a names; a title; a style of address descriptive of occupation, standing etc.; per Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionaru - 11th edition: Designate: to indicate a set a part for specific purpose, office or duty; to point out the location of; to distinguish or class Designation: the act of indicating or identifying appointment to or selection for an office, post, or service; a distinguishing name, sign, or title. Thus, the word 'designate' means to mark out or to indicate. In other words, it is to 'to describe distinctly' or 'to qualify something' attributable or attached to a person or a thing. As noted supra, firstly the Planning Authority prepares a plan containing the existing land use and offers the same for public inspection and comments. Corrections, if any are carried out after considering the comments received by member/s of public. Thereafter, proposed Master Plan is prepared and sent to Government. Public comments are again called for before Government accord their final approval to the Master Plan. Different zones are delineated in the Master Plan and the land use of respective zones is indicated. Once the Master Plan is approved by the Government, every land owner shall be duty bound to bring the land use in conformity with the Master Plan. Therefore, the premise of the appellants that their land was 'designated as agriculture zone' is wholly misconstrued. The correct interpretation is, in the approved Master Plan appellants' land fell within a particular zone and the instant case in the 'agriculture zone' or 'green belt'. Consequently, appellants were duty bound in law to bring their land use in conformity with the Master Plan namely agriculture. 18. It is unambiguous that once the Master Plan is duly approved by the Government under Section 13 of the Act, it becomes a legally enforceable document. Sufficient opportunity is given to the land owners and members of the public to suggest any amendment/s to the proposed plan under Sections 10(2) and 13(1) and (2) of the Act. 18. It is unambiguous that once the Master Plan is duly approved by the Government under Section 13 of the Act, it becomes a legally enforceable document. Sufficient opportunity is given to the land owners and members of the public to suggest any amendment/s to the proposed plan under Sections 10(2) and 13(1) and (2) of the Act. The Master Plan is approved only after considering the objections or comments if any received from any members of the public. Therefore, once the Master Plan is approved under Section 13 of the Act, the land use cannot be altered without necessary permission under Section 14-A of the Act. 19. Acquisition of land 'designated' for certain purposes is governed by Chapter IX of the Act. It provides an option to the Planning Authority to acquire the lands mentioned therein in furtherance of its purpose and intent of the Master Plan. Lands falling within Clause (b) are the pieces and parcel of land earmarked to be used for formation of major and minor roads, highways and traffic circulations. Legislature has exempted these lands from automatic application of deeming provision contained in Section 69(2). Consequently, even if the Government does not acquire these lands within the stipulated period of five years, yet, the designation shall not lapse by operation of deeming fiction. 20. So far as the lands falling within Clause (a) which are akin to appellants' land, are concerned, the Planning Authority has an option to acquire them, only if required for any public purpose and accordingly it must be designated in the Master Plan. For example, keeping in view the increase in population or such other expediency, the Planning Authority may deem it appropriate to have more than one bus terminus or market area in a residential zone or a hospital in an agricultural zone. Thus, such piece of land may be 'earmarked' or 'designated' by the Planning Authority for such specified public purpose. The Planning Authority while exercising the power vested in it under Section 69(1) of the Act may acquire such piece or pieces of land for the public purpose. Thus, such piece of land may be 'earmarked' or 'designated' by the Planning Authority for such specified public purpose. The Planning Authority while exercising the power vested in it under Section 69(1) of the Act may acquire such piece or pieces of land for the public purpose. However, if the Planning Authority fails to exercise its option to acquire such lands falling under Section 12(a) and 'earmarked' or 'designated' for public purposes within the specified period of 'five years' from the date of publication of Master Plan in the Gazette, only then, the deeming provision shall come into play and designation of such lands earmarked for such public purposes would lapse. The Zoning Regulations 2003, published by the second respondent - Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority relevant for the case on hand are placed for our perusal. In terms thereof, the land use permissible in a 'green belt area' reads as follows:- "Green Belt (Agriculture Zone) (a) Uses that are permissible: Agriculture, horticulture, dairy and poultry farming, milk chilling centres, farm houses and their accessory buildings not exceeding 200 sq. meters of plinth area within the plot area limitation of 1.00 hectare uses specifically shown or stated in the land use plan like; urban village brick kilns, quarrying without crushers and removal of clay and stone upto 2.00 mtrs. depth, parks, gardens, orchards, nurseries and other staple crops, grazing pastures, forest lands, marshy land, barren land and watersheet, highway amenities viz., filling station, weigh bridges and check posts, sport complex, water sports and amusement parks. (b) Uses that are permissible under special circumstances by the Authority: Places of worship, schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries, sports clubs, stadium, cultural buildings, exhibition, centres, and open spaces storage and sale of farm products where it is produced, the service and repairs of farm machinery and agricultural supplies, subject to condition that the area covered by such buildings should not exceed 20% of the total area and consists only Ground + 1 floor with an all-round min set back of 5 mtrs. 21. Thus, a harmonious reading of the provisions contained in the Act would lead to an irresistible inference that the word 'designation' has to be understood in the context of its usage in Section 69 of the Act with reference to the purpose of the Act and preparation of the Master Plan. 21. Thus, a harmonious reading of the provisions contained in the Act would lead to an irresistible inference that the word 'designation' has to be understood in the context of its usage in Section 69 of the Act with reference to the purpose of the Act and preparation of the Master Plan. To make it more explicit, Planning Authority can 'earmark' or 'designate' a piece or portion of land in Green belt zone for any public purpose such as a hospital or a 'shopping complex' in a residential zone. In such circumstances, though such earmarked piece or pieces of land fell within agriculture zone or a residential zone respectively, the same may be designated for such other specified public purposes. By virtue of such designation, such lands shall be available for acquisition by the planning authority. However, if the Planning Authority fails to exercise its option to acquire the said lands, then the 'designation' of such land lapses and land use will have to be brought in conformity with the zonal regulation as per the Master Plan. However, in the event, the owners of such lands, which were designated for any public purpose desire to use the land for any other purpose after the lapse of designation, they may do so by taking recourse under Section 14-A of the Act. Any change in the land use may be permitted by the Planning Authority with the prior approval of the State Government under Section 14-A of the Act. 22. The intent of legislature in introducing the deeming provision is to enable the land owner to use the land in the manner he may desire. But such option is available only after expiry of the stipulated period of five years within which the Planning Authority shall enjoy the prerogative to acquire the land to implement it's plan. If the deeming provision was not available, then the said land owner's right to use the land would have been fettered. With the deeming provision in place, the owner shall have certainty. Either the land shall be acquired by the Planning Authority within five years or he shall have the liberty to make use of his land in conformity with Zonal regulations or for such other purpose after obtaining permission for change of land use under Section 14. With the deeming provision in place, the owner shall have certainty. Either the land shall be acquired by the Planning Authority within five years or he shall have the liberty to make use of his land in conformity with Zonal regulations or for such other purpose after obtaining permission for change of land use under Section 14. Public purpose being of paramount consideration, the Legislature has provided an option to the Planning Authority to earmark any piece of land in any zone and acquire the same for public purpose within five years. 23. Thus, from the date on which the declaration of intention to prepare a Master Plan is published under Section 10(1) of the Act, every land use in the area covered by the plan shall conform to the provisions of the Act and the Master Plan finally approved by the Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The question of acquisition under Section 69(1) of the Act comes into play only when a piece of land is designated for a public purpose in the Master Plan. In the instant case, the land in question was not designated for any public purpose. The land in question fell in the 'agricultural zone' or 'green built area' defined in Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. It only means that the land owner can use the land for the purposes permitted in Green belt area as per 'Zonal of land use and Regulations 2003 extracted supra. Or if the owner of land in Green Belt area is desirous of using his land for any other purpose, he may do so after obtaining permission for change of land use under Section 14 of the Act. 24. Thus, in the instant case, the Planning Authority had no obligation to acquire appellants' land under Section 69(1) of the Act. Consequently, the deeming fiction has no application to the facts of this case. Any other interpretation with regard to application of deeming provision contained in Section 69(2) of the Act to the lands falling in Clause (a) of Section 12 would be incongruous. If it is to be interpreted that planning authority has an obligation to acquire entire area of land in every zone, for a period of five years then, it would lead to a chaotic situation. If it is to be interpreted that planning authority has an obligation to acquire entire area of land in every zone, for a period of five years then, it would lead to a chaotic situation. Planning Authority cannot and shall not saddle every land owner with an obligation of compulsory waiting for five years. As a corollary, the Government or the Planning Authority shall not burden itself with an obligation to acquire every piece of land falling in various zones. Therefore, the only plausible interpretation is that the Planning Authority shall have an option to acquire only such pieces of land 'earmarked' or designated for a public purpose in zone within a period of five years. If such land is not acquired within the stipulated period of five years, then this land becomes free from the threat of compulsory acquisition and the owner shall be at liberty to enjoy the same by using it as per Zonal regulations or for any purpose after obtaining change of land use. 25. Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) In the case of HASMUKHRAI V. MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2015 AIR SCW 174; (ii) In the case of AMITA NITIN SHRGURKAR v. BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in LAWS (KAR) - 2012-6-238. 26. In the case of Hasmukhrai above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which a piece of land which fell within the 'residential zone' and the owner had obtained sanction for the development of land for the residential purpose. Subsequently, the land in question was notified and reserved for the purpose of APMC Yard and a Truck terminal. Accepting such reservation, the owner of the land made a request to the respondents therein to acquire the said land. However, the Government did not choose to acquire. In such circumstances, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that by deeming fiction, the restriction on development of land stood lapsed. 27. In the case of Amita Nitin above, learned Single Judge of this Court was considering a case in which a piece of land designated as an 'open space' was permitted to be used for residential purposes. After a lapse of five years, the petitioners therein had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land for residential purposes and the same was rejected. After a lapse of five years, the petitioners therein had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land for residential purposes and the same was rejected. It was held by this Court that the petitioner was not seeking a change of land use from the Master Plan from residential zone to any other zone and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the application afresh in the light of the observations made therein. 28. Hence, in our view, both the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not lead his case any further. 29. Now coming to the facts of the case on hand, the appellants filed an application for change of land use contending that by virtue of Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 they were entitled for change of land use. The authority examined the proposal in the light of Section 69(2) and rejected the application. Even though the applicant had quoted a wrong provision or understood the implication of a particular statute on a particular manner the 2nd respondent being a Statutory Authority ought to have applied it's mind in the right perspective. The request was for a permission to use the land which fell in green belt for residential use. The authority unnecessarily entered into the area of interpretation of Section 69(2) which was wholly irrelevant. The authority ought to have examined the request on it's merits considering the feasibility or otherwise of permitting the change in land use. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 2.6.2015 is unsustainable in law. 30. In view of the above discussion, these appeals merit consideration. In the result, we pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed; (ii) Order of learned single Judge dated 27.7.2015 in W.Ps. No. 105400-402/2015 & connected cases, is set aside; (iii) Endorsement No. HU.DHA.NA.PRA:NA.YO:BHU.BA: 15-16/859 dated 2.6.2015 issued by the second respondent, is quashed; (iv) Second respondent is directed to re-consider the application for change of land use of appellants' land afresh on merit under Section 14-A without reference to Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. H. Billappa, J. I have perused the draft judgment furnished by my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar. No costs. H. Billappa, J. I have perused the draft judgment furnished by my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view expressed by my learned brother regarding designation of land and lapsing of designation. Therefore, I am recording my own reasons. 31. In the present case, the appellants are the joint owners of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 80/2 of Tadasinakoppa village, Dharwad Taluk, measuring 4 acres 34 guntas. The land of the appellants has been designated as agricultural zone (green belt area) in the Master Plan. In this regard, a notification has been published on 20.11.2003 in Part 6 of the Karnataka Gazette under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Thereafter, the respondents have not acquired the land. Therefore, the appellants contend that the designation of the land is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 after the expiry of five years from the date of publication of the Master Plan in the gazette under sub-section (4) of Section 13. It is stated, the first respondent has issued circulars dated 22.12.2005 and 6.3.2010 which provide that if the authorities fail to acquire the land reserved/designated for regional parks and other purposes under section 69 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 within five years from the date of such designation, such designation will be lapsed and permission may be accorded for the land use as desired by the land owners. The appellants have applied for permission to use their land for residential purpose. Their application has not been considered. Therefore, the appellants have approached this Court in W.P. No. 84022/2013. This Court by its order dated 20.12.2013 has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 32. It appears, the direction of this Court was not complied with. Therefore, contempt proceedings have been initiated in C.C.C. No. 100036/2015. In the said contempt proceedings, the second respondent has issued endorsement dated 2.6.2015 stating that the application of the appellants for change of land use is rejected on the ground that the land specified in section 12(1)(a) should be earmarked for public purpose. Otherwise, section 69(2) is not attracted. The said endorsement has been challenged by the appellants in W.P. Nos. Otherwise, section 69(2) is not attracted. The said endorsement has been challenged by the appellants in W.P. Nos. 105400-402/2015. The writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 33. It is relevant to note, the appellants are the joint owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 80/2 of Tadasinakoppa village measuring 4 acres 34 guntas. The appellant's land has been designated as agricultural zone (green belt area) in the Master Plan. The gazette notification has been issued on 20.11.2003. So far the land of the appellants has not been acquired. 34. Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 provides as follows: "Section 12. Contents of Master Plan.-(1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for the following, namely- (a) zoning of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations." 35. It is clear, the Master Plan shall include proposal for zoning of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations. The zoning regulations provide the purpose for which the land which comes under agricultural zone can be used. "Green Belt (Agricultural Zone) (a) Uses that are permissible: Agriculture, horticulture, dairy and poultry farming, milk chilling centres, farm houses and their accessory buildings not exceeding 200 sq. meters of plinth area within the plot area limitation of 1.00 hectare uses specifically shown or stated in the land use plan like; urban village brick kilns, quarrying without crushers and removal of clay and stone upto 2.00 mtrs. depth, parks, gardens, orchards, nurseries and other staple crops, grazing pastures, forest lands, marshy land, barren land and watersheet, highway amenities viz., filling stations, weigh bridges and check posts, sport complex, water sports and amusement parks. depth, parks, gardens, orchards, nurseries and other staple crops, grazing pastures, forest lands, marshy land, barren land and watersheet, highway amenities viz., filling stations, weigh bridges and check posts, sport complex, water sports and amusement parks. (b) Uses that are permissible under special circumstances by the Authority: Places of worship, schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries, sports clubs, stadium, cultural buildings, exhibition centres and open spaces storage and sale of farm products where it is produced, the service and repairs of farm machinery and agricultural supplies, subject to condition that the area covered by such buildings should not exceed 20% of the total area and consists only Ground + 1 floor with an allround min set back of 5 mtrs. 36. Tourist resorts and holiday homes may be permitted within a plot area limitation of 0.4 hectare and plinth area limitation of 200 sq.mtrs. In each unit (plot) common ancillary uses may be permitted in an area not exceeding 10% of the total project area. Residential development may be permitted within 100 mtrs. From the existing gramthana of villages and buildings in such area should not exceed two floors (Ground + one) 37. Section 69(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 provides as follows: (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." 38. It is clear, the Planning Authority has the option to acquire the land designated in the 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. 39. In the present case, the land of the appellants has been designated in the Master Plan as agricultural zone. It falls under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12. It can be acquired for any public purpose. Section 70 provides that the land needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or Master Plan shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose. In the present case, the appellants' land falls within the ambit of agricultural zone. It can be acquired for any public purpose. Section 70 provides that the land needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or Master Plan shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose. In the present case, the appellants' land falls within the ambit of agricultural zone. It comes under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12. It can be acquired for public purpose. The land use is indicated in the zonal regulations. For the purpose indicated in zonal regulations, the land can be acquired by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act. If the designated land except land specified for the purpose in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12 is not acquired 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 is deemed to have been lapsed. It is clear, if the designated land except the land specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12 is not acquired within five years the designation is deemed to have been lapsed. 40. In the present case, the land of the appellants has been designated as agricultural zone (green belt area). It comes under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12. It can be acquired for public purpose. The notification under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 has been published on 20.11.2003. So far the land of the appellants has not been acquired. Therefore, section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is attracted. The designation lapses by virtue of section 69(2) of the Act. Therefore, the land owners can request for change of land use. However, that will be subject to section 14-A of the Act. Section 14-A of the Act provides that the Planning Authority may with the previous approval of the State Government allow change in the land use or development from the Master Plan as may be necessitated. Therefore, when once the land is not acquired within five years, the landowner can request for permission to use their land as desired by them subject to section 14-A of the Act. It is the Planning Authority which can allow change of land use with the previous approval of the State Government. Therefore, when once the land is not acquired within five years, the landowner can request for permission to use their land as desired by them subject to section 14-A of the Act. It is the Planning Authority which can allow change of land use with the previous approval of the State Government. Therefore, after the designation lapses under section 69(2), the land owner can request for change of land use under section 14-A of the Act. In the present case, the appellants have requested for change of land use. The concerned authority has rejected the request on the ground that the land specified in section 12(1)(a) must be earmarked for public purpose. Otherwise, section 69(2) is not attracted. The appellants land is not earmarked for any public purpose. Therefore, the case of the appellants is not covered under section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. 41. Similarly, the learned single Judge has held for the categories of land that come under section 12(1)(a) of the Act, the ear marking should be for public purpose. Otherwise, section 69(2) is not attracted. The appellants have not made any application under section 14-A of the Act for change of land use. Therefore, the writ petitions have been dismissed. 42. The learned single Judge as well as the concerned Authority have failed to notice that the land of the appellants has been designated as agricultural zone in the Master plan. It falls under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Out of the land specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12, for any public purpose the land can be acquired by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 70 of the Act provides that the land needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or Master Plan shall be deemed to be the land needed for a public purpose. In the Master Plan the land of the appellants is designated as agricultural zone. The land use is indicated in zonal regulations. For the purpose indicated in the zonal regulations, the land can be acquired by the planning Authority within five years as indicated in Section 69(1) of the Act. If the land is not acquired within five years except the land specified in clause (b) of the sub-section (1) of Section 12, the designation lapses in respect of the other lands. For the purpose indicated in the zonal regulations, the land can be acquired by the planning Authority within five years as indicated in Section 69(1) of the Act. If the land is not acquired within five years except the land specified in clause (b) of the sub-section (1) of Section 12, the designation lapses in respect of the other lands. In the present case, the appellants land is designated as agricultural zone in the Master plan. The land is not acquired for any public purpose within five years from the date of publication of the Master plan in gazette. Therefore, the designation lapses under section 69(2) of the Act. The land owners can request for change of use. It will be subject to section 14-A of the Act. 43. Under section 14-A of the Act, the planning Authority can consider change of land use. In the present case, the request of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the land is not earmarked for public purpose and it is designated as agricultural zone. Similarly, the learned single Judge has held that the land specified in section 12(1)(a) of the Act must be earmarked for public purpose. Only then section 69(2) is attracted. The Authority and the learned single Judge have failed to notice that the land designated under section 12(1)(a) of the Act can be acquired for public purpose. If that is not done within five years, the designation lapses as provided under section 69(2) of the Act. In the present case, the land of the appellants has been designated as agricultural zone which falls under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The land is not acquired for any public purpose within five years. Therefore, the designation lapses. The Authority should have considered the request of the appellants for change of land use under section 14-A of the Act. The request is rejected for wrong reason. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2015 passed in W.P. Nos. 105400-402/2015 is hereby set-aside. The endorsement No. HU.DHA.NA.PRA:NA. YO:BHU:BA: 15-16/859 dated 2.6.2015 issued by the second respondent is quashed. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2015 passed in W.P. Nos. 105400-402/2015 is hereby set-aside. The endorsement No. HU.DHA.NA.PRA:NA. YO:BHU:BA: 15-16/859 dated 2.6.2015 issued by the second respondent is quashed. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the appellants for change of land use under section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 44. His Lordship Hon'ble Sri H. Billappa, J., after perusing the judgment drafted by me (PSDJ), has recorded separate reasons for allowing the appeals. The order of the learned single Judge dated 27.7.2015 in W.P. Nos. 105400-402/2015 has been set aside and the endorsement dated 2.6.2015 has been quashed by both members of the Bench. However Hon'ble HBJ has directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for change of land use under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and PSDJ has directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application for change of land use afresh on merits without reference to Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. 45. In view of divergence in the reasoning and the direction to the 2nd respondent, the Registry to place the file before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.