ORDER : 1. These writ appeals have been disposed of by Order dated 18.04.2016. As two Hon'ble Judges have rendered different opinion and have reached different conclusion with regard to the scope, meaning and understanding of the provision contained under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and an order is passed directing the registry to place the file before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders in view of the divergence in the reasoning and the direction issued by both the Learned Judges, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter is now listed before me for the opinion of the third Judge. 2. I have heard Learned Counsel for all the parties. They have taken me through the entire judgment, pleadings and provisions of law applicable. 3. It is necessary to notice the background relating to the controversy: Appellants are the joint owners of agricultural property measuring 4 acres 34 guntas in survey No. 80/2 of Tadasinakoppa Village, Dharwad Taluk. The Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority under the Act was notified in the Official Gazette dated 20.11.2003. In the said Master Plan, appellants lands were shown as falling within the agricultural zone (green belt area). 4. Appellants applied to the 2nd respondent for permission to use their land for residential purpose urging that the designation of their lands as falling under agricultural zone had stood lapsed in view of Section 69 (2) of the Act. As the said application was not considered, appellants filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 84022/2013. As per Order dated 20.12.2013, the writ petition was disposed of directing respondents therein to pass appropriate orders within three months. Thereafter, respondents issued an endorsement to the appellants dated 02.06.2015 stating that their request for change of land use had been rejected as the land in question fell under the agricultural zone/green belt area. The said endorsement was challenged by filing W.P. Nos. 105400-105402/2015 and connected matters. The writ petitions came to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petitioners preferred the present batch of writ appeals. 5. The said endorsement was challenged by filing W.P. Nos. 105400-105402/2015 and connected matters. The writ petitions came to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petitioners preferred the present batch of writ appeals. 5. In the writ appeals, a contention was raised by Shri Shriharsh Neelopant, Counsel appearing for the appellants that as per Section 69 (1) of the Act, the respondent-Planning Authority had an option to acquire the land belonging to appellants within a period of five years from the date of publication of Master Plan in the Gazette but, as the Planning Authority did not choose to exercise its option, by virtue of Section 69 (2) of the Act, designation of the land showing it as falling under agricultural zone/green belt area stood lapsed. It was his further contention that once the designation stood lapsed, appellants were automatically entitled to enjoy the lands by seeking conversion under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the rigors placed by the Act would no longer be applicable. He specifically contended that provisions of Section 14-A of the Act had no application once such designation stood lapsed. 6. This contention was refuted by the Learned Government Advocate as also Counsel appearing for the respondent-Town Planning Authority. 7. Hon'ble Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, in his separate judgment has held that once the Master Plan was duly approved by the Government under Section 13(2) of the Act, it became legally enforceable and the land use as dealienated in the Master Plan could be altered only in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 14-A by obtaining necessary permission. It is further held that the provision regarding acquisition of land designated for certain purposes is governed by Chapter IX of the Act. Dealing with the effect of Section 69(2), it has been held that as regards such of lands falling within Clause (a) of Section 12(1), the Planning Authority could acquire them, only if, they were required for public purpose. Giving an illustration, it is stated that by virtue of 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. Giving an illustration, it is stated that by virtue of 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. Therefore, such piece of land may be earmarked or designated by the Planning Authority for such specified public purpose and while exercising the power vested in it under Section 69(1) of the Act the authority may acquire such piece or pieces of land for the public purpose. However, if the Planning Authority failed 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 purpose/s would lapse. It is further pointed out that 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. In other words, the Planning Authority would 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 ora residential zone respectively, the same having been designated for such other specified public purposes such land would be available for acquisition by the Planning Authority. If the Planning Authority failed to exercise its option to acquire the said lands, then the designation of such land for the specified purpose lapses and the land use will have to be brought in conformity with the zonal regulation as per the Master Plan. In case, owners of such lands designated for any public purpose intended to make use of the land for any other purpose after the lapse of designation, they may do so by taking recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. 8. In case, owners of such lands designated for any public purpose intended to make use of the land for any other purpose after the lapse of designation, they may do so by taking recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. 8. On the strength of the above reasoning, Hon'ble Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar has held that there was no obligation on the Planning Authority to acquire appellants agricultural land under Section 69(1) of the Act the deeming fiction had no application to the facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants and therefore appellants could not contend that as their lands that were earmarked under agricultural zone/green belt area in the Master Plan if they are not acquired by paying compensation within five years, their designation as lands falling under agricultural zone/green belt area stood lapsed had to be rejected. As a result, while allowing the writ appeals and quashing the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the endorsement dated 02.06.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, a director has been issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the appellants for change of land use under Section 14-A of the Act within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 9. Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa, has recorded separate reasons for allowing the appeals and has expressed his view that in the facts of the case on hand, the request of the appellants had been rejected on the ground that the lands had been earmarked for public purpose by designating them as agricultural zone. It is pointed out that as per Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, once the land is designated as falling under agricultural zone, unless the same was acquired within five years, the designation lapsed in terms of Section 69(2) of the Act and in the facts of the case, the land of the appellants having been designated as falling under agricultural zone as the land was not acquired within five years, the designation stood lapsed and the authority ought to have considered the request of the appellants for change of land use under Section 14-A of the Act. (Underlying supplied by me) 10. (Underlying supplied by me) 10. Based on the above reasoning, Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa has pointed out that impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge challenged in the writ appeals could not be sustained and so also the endorsement issued by the authority. While allowing the appeal, Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa has also issued a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application under Section 14-A of the Act. Whereas, Hon'ble Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar while issuing similar direction has clarified that application for change of land use had to be considered afresh on merits without reference to Section 69(2) of the Act. In the views expressed by both the Hon'ble Judges, it has been ultimately held that the applicants have to seek change of land use as per Section 14-A of the Act. If that is so, the reasons assigned in both the judgments regarding the effect of Section 69(2) of the Act would really not come to the aid of the appellants herein. 11. However, contention of Shri Shriharsh Neelopant is that once the designation of land as falling under agricultural zone stood lapsed, question of appellants being called upon to apply under Section 14-A yet again did not arise. He, therefore, persists that view expressed by Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa would enable him to seek conversion of the land by taking recourse to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act would have no application once the designation stood lapsed. It is for this reason, elaborate arguments have been advanced in support of the understanding of the provision contained in Section 69 of the Act as construed by Justice H. Billappa and efforts have been made by him to persuade me to agree with this view. 12. It is for this reason, elaborate arguments have been advanced in support of the understanding of the provision contained in Section 69 of the Act as construed by Justice H. Billappa and efforts have been made by him to persuade me to agree with this view. 12. On careful consideration of the provisions contained in the Act particularly Section 2 (3-b) defining the term Master Plan, Section 9 dealing with Preparation of Master Plan, Section 10 pertaining to Declaration of intention of making the Master Plan, Section 12 regarding Contents of Master Plan, Section 14 and 14-A which apparently refer to enforcement of the Master Plan and the Regulations and as also the change of land use from the Master Plan respectively along with the provisions contained in Sections 69 and 70 of the Act, it emerges that Section 14 of the Act makes it clear that on and from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare a Master Plan is published under sub-Section (1) of Section 10, every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan, subject to Section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of the Act, the Master Plan and the report, as finally approved by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 13. No such change of land use can be made except with the written permission of the Planning Authority. The proviso to sub-clause (2) of Section 14 also makes it clear that where the use or change of land use under this Section needs diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes, such use or change of use shall not be permitted, unless permission is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for such diversion. 13. Section 14-A stipulates that at any time after the date on which the Master Plan for an area comes into operation, the Planning Authority may, with the previous approval of the State Government, allow such changes in the land use or development from the Master Plan as may be necessitated. It is therefore clear that once the land use is specified in the Master Plan, the land use can be changed only by recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. 14. It is therefore clear that once the land use is specified in the Master Plan, the land use can be changed only by recourse to Section 14-A of the Act. 14. It is also useful to refer to the provisions contained in Section 12 which pertains to contents of Master Plan. It reads as under: 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. (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. Explanation: (i) Building Line means the line up to which the plinth of a building adjoining a street may lawfully extend and includes the lines prescribed, if any, in any scheme. (ii) Floor Area Ratio means the quotient of the ratio of the combined gross floor area of all the floors, excepting areas specifically exempted under the regulations, to the total area of the plot. (ii) Floor Area Ratio means the quotient of the ratio of the combined gross floor area of all the floors, excepting areas specifically exempted under the regulations, to the total area of the plot. (2) The following particulars shall be published and sent to the State Government through the Director along with the master-plan, namely:- (i) a report of the surveys carried out by the Planning Authority before the preparation of such plan. (ii) a report explaining the provisions of the Master Plan. (iii) regulations in respect of each land use zone to enforce the provisions of such plan and explaining the manner in which necessary permission for developing any land can be obtained from the Planning Authority. (iv) a report of the stages by which it is proposed to meet the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by such plan. (3) Master Plan shall indicate Heritage Buildings and Heritage Precincts and shall include the regulations made therein for conservation of the same. 15. Section 69 falls in Chapter IX. It pertains to land acquisition. It reads as under: 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 a 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 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 this 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 sub-section (1) of section 12, 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 Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period the designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed. 16. 16. As per Section 69 (1), an option is given to the Planning Authority to acquire any land designated in a Master Plan for specified purpose in Clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12. Similar option is provided to acquire the land for any public purpose out of the specified land in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 either by agreement or by recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In sub-Clause (2) of Section 69, it is stated that if the designated land, except lands specified for the purpose in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12, 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. 17. The question is whether this deeming provision regarding lapse of designation applies in its entirety in respect of the lands described in the Master Plan as lands to be used for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes earmarked in the Master Plan by virtue of zoning of land use as per Section 12 (1) of the Act. 18. The contention of Shri Shriharsh Neelopant that if within a period of five years from the date the lands earmarked for agricultural purposes in the Master Plan, are not acquired for any public purpose by paying compensation to the land owners, the zoning of land use naming it as agricultural purpose would be deemed to have lapsed cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per Section 69 (1) of the Act, the intention of the Legislature is clear. It treats the lands designated in a Master Plan for specified purpose in Clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 in a particular manner whereas those falling under Section 12 (1) (a) are treated in a different manner. It treats the lands designated in a Master Plan for specified purpose in Clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 in a particular manner whereas those falling under Section 12 (1) (a) are treated in a different manner. In so far as the lands designated in a Master Plan for specified purposes in Clause (b), (c) or (d) they are the types of lands that are proposed for a complete street pattern indicating major or minor roads, National Highways or State Highways or areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions anil area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for new civic developments. First part of sub-section (1) of Section 69 makes it clear that the Planning Authority may acquire any such land designated in the Master Plan for such specific purposes mentioned in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 69 within five years. Thereafter, in sub-section (2), it is made clear that if the designated land, except the land specified for the purpose in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 are 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 lapsed. 19. As rightly urged by the Learned Additional Government Advocate, the acquisition contemplated under Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Act pertains to those lands that are designated as lands to be used for public purpose under sub-Clause (b), (c) and (d) of Clause (1) of Section 12 and such of the lands as specified for being used for public purpose from out of the lands specified in sub Clause (a) of Section 12(1). Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire lands earmarked as agricultural use in the Master Plan have to be acquired or otherwise they will cease to be land designated as falling under agricultural zone in the Master Plan. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire lands earmarked as agricultural use in the Master Plan have to be acquired or otherwise they will cease to be land designated as falling under agricultural zone in the Master Plan. The right way of understanding the provision under Section 69 of the Act is that if from out of the agricultural land notified for agricultural use in the Master Plan, any land is specified for any public purpose, then unless the said earmarked land is used for any public purpose, its designation for that public purpose ceases and the land owner will be entitled to make use of the same in accordance with law by taking recourse to Section 14-A and seek change of land use. There is no non-abstante clause used in Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Act so as to give over riding effect to it over Section 14-A. Therefore, the interpretation sought to be laid by Shri Shriharsh Neelopant on Section 69 of the Act cannot be accepted. 20. The view expressed by Hon'ble Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, in the facts and circumstances of the case is consistent with the intention of the Legislature and leads to harmonious constructions of the provisions contained in the Act. Otherwise the purpose and object of the enactment providing for regulation of land use by specifying the use of lands for different purposes in the Master Plan gets frustrated. The concerned authority cannot be forced to acquire the land that has been earmarked in the Master Plan for agricultural use within five years from the date such usage was notified. In that event, hundreds of acres of land notified for agricultural use in the Master Plan will have to be acquired in order to ensure that the land owners falling within that zone do not make use of the lands indiscriminately for any other purpose without taking recourse to the Town and Country Planning Act. 21. In view of the above, the question raised is answered accordingly. In the result, application filed by the appellants for change of land use has to be considered in accordance with Section 14-A of the Town and Country Planning Act without reference to Section 69 of the Act.