ORDER : In Ran Vijay Singh & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2018(2) SCC 357 , the Apex Court exclaimed; What a mess !. It aptly applies to these cases too. 2. Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust, 'Trust' for short has presented: W.P. No.55344/2017 assailing the order passed by Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North, holding 354 acres 10 guntas held by the Trust as 'excess land' under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; and W.P. No.3848/2021 challenging dismissal of its appeal by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and confirming Deputy Commissioner's endorsement refusing to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes. 3. Facts of the case: It is pleaded in the writ petition that Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust, a Public Charitable Trust was formed under Trust deed on September 7, 1942 with objects inter alia to provide relief to the poor, education, medical relief etc. It is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act having registration No. 1417 dated August 23, 1961. 4. Acharya Vinobha Bhave inspired Shri. Kamal Nayan Bajaj, one of the Trustees to set up an International Sarvodaya Centre in Bengaluru to spread the philosophy of Sarvodaya. The Trust decided to implement the same and passed a resolution on June 23, 1958 to acquire land in Bengaluru to set-up an Ashram to propagate the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinobha Bhave. After obtaining permission from the Collector of Wardha to invest funds belonging to the Trust, the Trust purchased about 400 acres of land in Herohalli, Srigandhadakaval and Gidadakonenahalli villages of Yeshwanthapura Hobli under sale deed dated February 22, 1960. Between 1962 and 1972, the Trust has established International Sarvodaya Centre known as 'Vishwaneedam' and carrying on activities of social/rural development such as conducting training programmes in health, family planning, immunization, eye camp etc. Vishwaneedam also imparts non-formal mode of pre-primary education, free mid-day meals, distribution of free uniform to students, vitamin tablets etc. It was providing cart services to pick-up and drop children to their homes. It has worked for empowering women by giving subsidy and establishing hasthakala vibhaga where women are taught to make soft toys and several other programmes. The Sarvodaya Centre has housed a library with 7000 titles on various subjects on Sarvodaya and Gandhian thought. Activities are also conducted in association with Akhil Bharathiya Sarva Seva Sangha, another Gandhian organization. 5. It has worked for empowering women by giving subsidy and establishing hasthakala vibhaga where women are taught to make soft toys and several other programmes. The Sarvodaya Centre has housed a library with 7000 titles on various subjects on Sarvodaya and Gandhian thought. Activities are also conducted in association with Akhil Bharathiya Sarva Seva Sangha, another Gandhian organization. 5. Karnataka Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi was also permitted to occupy buildings in the campus to run village industries and Panchayat Raj centre. The Trust has also permitted the Vishwaneedam to carry out its philanthropic activities from the campus. 6. With effect from March 1, 1974, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, 'Land Reforms act' for short was amended stipulating ceiling limit on land holding by Charitable Institution at 20 units. Though the provisions of Land Reforms Act had no application to the lands held by the Trust, by way of abundant precaution, the Trust filed declaration before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North in Form No.11 under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act and it was registered as LRF No.CR-2099/1974-75. The Trust declared about 400 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 12/1, 12/2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 42, 43/1 and 43/2 of Srigandhadakaval village, Sy. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 34/1B, 34/2, 34/3, 34/4, 37, 39, 40/1, 40/2, 41 to 49, 51, 52/2, 55 of Herohalli village and Sy. Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 45/1 of Gidadakonenahalli village. 7. Reiterating the above facts, Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that whilst the declaration filed by the Trust under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act was pending consideration, proceedings were initiated under Section 79 of the KLR Act. The same was challenged in W.P. No.2363/1986 and it was disposed of by common order dated July 29, 1991 holding that there was no reason for issuing a Notification by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 79B; and the Land Tribunal was directed to hold enquiry under Section 67(1)(b) of Land Reforms Act and to pass orders in accordance with law. The Assistant Commissioner submitted a Report to the Revenue Department on November 16, 1998 confirming that 342 acres of land had come within 'Urban Agglomeration'. On October 29, 2001, the Trust filed an application before the Land Tribunal to drop the proceedings on the ground that the lands in question are not agricultural lands. The Assistant Commissioner submitted a Report to the Revenue Department on November 16, 1998 confirming that 342 acres of land had come within 'Urban Agglomeration'. On October 29, 2001, the Trust filed an application before the Land Tribunal to drop the proceedings on the ground that the lands in question are not agricultural lands. No opportunity was given to the Trust to substantiate its contention and certain orders were passed. The Trust approached this Court in W.P. No.46841/2001 for a direction against the Tribunal for consideration of their application and dropping of further proceedings. This Court, vide order dated October 25, 2005 directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application filed by the Trust under Section 66 of the Act after giving opportunity and holding enquiry. The Trust filed its statements and produced various documents. Pursuant to an application filed by the Trust, a spot inspection was conducted. The Trust filed its objections to the inspection report. However, without proper enquiry, Tribunal passed its order on January 12, 2010 holding 213 acres 20 guntas as excess land. The Trust challenged the said order in W.P. No.4311/2010. This Court allowed the writ petition and matter was remanded for fresh consideration. 8. After the remand, on December 9, 2014, the Trust filed a Memo before the Land Tribunal to declare the lands as 'Urban lands'. The Tribunal directed the Tahasildar and ADLR to conduct a survey. Accordingly, a survey report was submitted on July 28, 2015 showing about 250 acres of land as uncultivable. The Trust also submitted additional evidence in the form of Affidavit and documents. Without considering Tahasildar's report and without proper enquiry, the Tribunal passed the second order on September 22, 2015 holding 265 acres 24 guntas as excess land and directed the Trust to surrender the same. Feeling aggrieved, the Trust challenged the said order in W.Ps. No. 41866-870/2015. By common order dated May 2, 2017, this Court allowed the writ petitions and set-aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal with a further direction to consider the Report dated July 28, 2015 and thereafter, to record a finding with regard to the nature, the extent of land and possession etc. 9. On May 22, 2017, the Land Tribunal directed for a fresh spot inspection. The Taluka surveyor conducted fresh inspection and submitted his Report confirming that about 300 acres comprises of rocky uncultivable and constructed area. 9. On May 22, 2017, the Land Tribunal directed for a fresh spot inspection. The Taluka surveyor conducted fresh inspection and submitted his Report confirming that about 300 acres comprises of rocky uncultivable and constructed area. On November 28, 2017, the Land Tribunal passed the third order holding 354 acres 10 guntas as excess land. But the same was not communicated to the Trust and the Trust learnt about the same through Newspaper report in 'Prajavani' published on December 7, 2017. On the very same day, the Revenue Officials came to the campus and prepared three mahazars and took possession of alleged excess lands. The Trust has challenged the said order dated November 28, 2017 in this writ petition. 10. Assailing the impugned order, Shri. Holla submitted: That the lands in question are not agricultural lands. The Trust has purchased the lands to fulfill the wishes of Shri. Jamanlal Bajaj, a philanthropist and ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi to serve the cause of distress and downtrodden for which the Public Charitable Trust was constituted; That the terms of the Trust were settled by Mahatma Gandhi himself; The Trust was inspired by Acharya Vinobha Bhave's suggestion to establish a Sarvodaya Centre and accordingly, the land was purchased; That in the application filed before the Registrar of Public Trust, Wardha, it is clearly stated that the idea of starting the Ashram originated during the talks between Shri. Acharya Vinobhaji Bhave and Shri. Kamal Nayan Bajaj, the Chairman of the Trust. On April 11, 1960 the Collector, Wardha has accorded permission to purchase the lands to set up an Ashram by utilizing the funds of the Trust and donations; That the Trust is carrying out its objects and other activities in the campus; That ever since the date of purchase, the trust has not taken up any agricultural operation. The Trust has filed the application under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act under improper advice; That the definition of 'Land' under Section 2(18) of Land Reforms Act does not include the 'land' used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application; Trust has filed its application as far back on October 29, 2001 to drop the proceedings as the lands in question are not agricultural lands. In all, the Land Tribunal has passed three orders. Therefore, Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application; Trust has filed its application as far back on October 29, 2001 to drop the proceedings as the lands in question are not agricultural lands. In all, the Land Tribunal has passed three orders. In the first order, 213 acres 20 guntas was held as excess land. In the second order, 265 acres 24 guntas was held as excess land. In the third order, impugned in this writ petition, the Land Tribunal has held 354 acres 10 guntas as excess lands. Thus, there is no application of mind by the Land Tribunal; That in order dated May 2, 2017, while setting-aside the second order passed by the Land Tribunal, this Court has directed the Land Tribunal to consider the report dated July 28, 2015 and thereafter, to record a finding with regard to nature and extent of land. In para 46 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded that the Report dated July 28, 2015 cannot be considered. This, is in flagrant violation of the direction of this Court; That the noble cause of the Trust to set-up the Ashram to carry on the avowed objects of the Trust and the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinobhaji, has been destroyed by the State. 11. With these submissions Shri. Holla prayed for allowing this writ petition. 12. Shri. Aruna Shyam, learned Additional Advocate General, mainly contended that: The Sale deed clearly shows that Trust has purchased agricultural lands; Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act provides for filing the declaration and the Trust has filed the same voluntarily. The Trust has taken inconsistent stands. In W.P. No.2363/1986, it has contended that proceedings under Section 79B of the Land Reforms Act are not sustainable. In W.P. No. 46481/2001, it’s stand is, lands are not agricultural in nature. It cannot approbate and reprobate; With effect from February 17, 1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, ULC Act' for short' came into operation in Karnataka State; When the ULC Act came into force, it was not the stand of the Trust that the land came within the purview of 'Urban Agglomeration', but after it's repeal, Trust has sought to take shelter under the ULC Act. As such, Trust is estopped from taking such stand at a belated stage; Merely because the land falls within the Urban area, it does not lose the character of land defined under Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act, unless it is converted for non-agricultural purpose under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; and The Revenue Records clearly show that the land is agricultural in nature. 13. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 14. Undisputed facts of the case are, in the Trust Deed (Annexure-B), it is stated that Late Shri. Jamnalalji Bajaj, who once absolutely owned and possessed the Funds and Estate, which is the corpus of the Trust, during his lifetime, was proposing to use a portion of his Estate for serving the cause of distressed and downtrodden humanity irrespective of caste or creed. He died a premature and sudden death. The settlers of the Trust, who inherited his Estate, have formed the Trust to give effect to his wishes. 15. Clause 8 of the Trust deed provides that the Trustees shall apply wholly and solely and in perpetuity the rents, profits, income from the immovable property and the Trust funds for the charitable purposes without distinction of place, nationality, caste or creed which includes relief for the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any object of general public utility. Several properties and some cash are the subject matter of Trust. A copy of the extract of meeting of the Trust held on June 23, 1958 and its true translation in English is also appended to writ petition. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the meeting reads as follows: "Translation of the extract of the Meeting of JBST held on 23/6/1958. 17. Shri Kamalnayanji had a discussion with Acharya Vinoba Ji regarding crafting for people having faith in the ideology of Gandiji and Vinobaji. Shri Kamalnayanji put forth all these issues in front of the trustees. The summary is as follows. I have been discussing with Rev. Vinobaji for the last six months or so. It came to my mind that Sarvodaya people and Sarva Seva Sangh are already working towards promoting Gandhi Ji's life and literature. The same needs (to be done) (sic.) to delve deeply into the life-work of Vinoba Ji and promote his ideology in an organized manner. I have been discussing with Rev. Vinobaji for the last six months or so. It came to my mind that Sarvodaya people and Sarva Seva Sangh are already working towards promoting Gandhi Ji's life and literature. The same needs (to be done) (sic.) to delve deeply into the life-work of Vinoba Ji and promote his ideology in an organized manner. Such an institution will touch the hearts of people who strive for transformation of society (through) (sic.) an intellectual revolution and produce a civilization of renovated social norms based on the manifestation of love and camaraderie in human lives. Only time will truly prove and assess how successful such an intellectual and moral movement based on truth, non violence and love will be. It will be great if it succeeds. Even if it succeeds partially or goes (away) (sic.), I am not worried about it at present. What I really believe is that irrespective of such movements doing will, or otherwise India needs several places which are pleasant, with pious environment, which is pure, places where peace, tranquility and happiness permeate the surroundings. At least one such beautiful place needs to be founded as an Ashram in which Rev. Gandhi Ji's and Vinobha ji's ideals, their literature, lifework research, experience, teaching-learning, understanding, rumination, contemplation, practice can be facilitated under favorable conditions. This Ashram would be sympathetic towards Sarvodaya movement and Sarvodaya modus operandi. It will enrich the ideas; yet will not be consumed in their movements. It will be an international centre for the devout and sagaciously inclined people (from) (sic.) all over the world who have faith in Gandhi Vinoba ideals and strive for salvation. Conductive atmosphere should be provided here along with facilities to encourage people (from) (sic.) all walks of (life) (sic.) like the literati, artists, engineers, doctors, constructive village workers in fact people across the spectrum should benefit from the lives of these great men. Mutts or Ashrams of spiritualist Gurus like Shankaracharya, (Ramanjacharaya) (sic.), Vallabhacharya and Madhvacharya have been in existence in India for thousand of years, places which are conducive to understand and research, teach and learn the philosophy and traditions of these great spiritualists. Mutts or Ashrams of spiritualist Gurus like Shankaracharya, (Ramanjacharaya) (sic.), Vallabhacharya and Madhvacharya have been in existence in India for thousand of years, places which are conducive to understand and research, teach and learn the philosophy and traditions of these great spiritualists. Although over (the years) (sic.), a lot of flaws have crept into these mutts and efforts should be made to correct them, it's fact that a great deal of historical, philosophical, heritage value is still attributed to these spiritualists mutts even today. Gandhi Ji and Vinoaba Ji too have started Ashrams and conscientiously scarified them at the altar of national activities to attain freedom. These were (exemplary) (sic.), conducts demonstrating their (sacrifice) (sic.), selflessness and non-possessiveness. Considering the state of affairs of the nation and demands of the movement, whatever they did was essential. Still, it is the responsibility of the civil society that the lives and times of these epochal men can be pursued at place like Ashrams where their philosophies can be understood, which can uphold the traditions and cultures for hundreds or may be thousands of years if possible. It is entirely possible that only the outward appearance of these great souls remain there. Even if we can achieve that, future generations can at least look back at the (life) (sic.) of these giant (sic.), souls to inspire themselves to seize epochal changing initiatives. If we can even partially (facilitate) (sic.) such institutions this will indeed be noblest of endeavor. Rev Vinoba Ji has blessed (and) (sic.) concurred to set up such an Ashram in Bangalore in South India. A few of his disciples have come forward to stay there and take up responsibility. I have identified many such farms of 50-200 acres with adequate water, pleasant surroundings (and) (sic.) pious environment fit for an Ashram. Such a land or any other such land has to be chosen. The cost of land is estimated to be around Rupees One Lakh. Substantial expenditure would be incurred (in) (sic.) repair and maintenance of old and dilapidated buildings, water bodies building of compound, building of necessary new structures, building of roads, landscaping, garden plantations etc. Vinoba Ji's opinion is that such an Ashram should come up near Bangalore in south India. This whole concept was highly appreciated by Rev. Vinoba ji. He also said that 4-5 such Ashrams should come up all over India. Vinoba Ji's opinion is that such an Ashram should come up near Bangalore in south India. This whole concept was highly appreciated by Rev. Vinoba ji. He also said that 4-5 such Ashrams should come up all over India. I suggested that Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust is willing to take up the responsibility of funding around Rupees One Lakh on such a project. The land can be purchased either in the name of a new trust or in the name of JBST, or alternatively, given on lease to some new trust to run JBST Ashram. At this suggestion, Rev. Vinoba Ji opined that since he has a long standing bond with (Jamnalal ji) (sic.) the Ashram land should be in the name of JBST, and Kakaji's (Jamnalal ji) (sic.) name in it is wholly justified." Pursuant to this discussion, the Chairman of the trust Shri. Kamalanayan Ji is authorized to purchase 100-200 acres of land in or around Bangalore. The ownership may vest (sic.) with either JBST or a new trust created for this purpose. Rev. Vinoba ji has appreciated that vision of such Ashrams and blessed this concept. He has agreed to constantly guide in this matter and from his side, endorsed the appointment of Shri. Vallabhaswamy as the first administrator of this Ashram. JBST believes that by establishing such an Ashram, service would be rendered to the nation and all possible help and co-operation should be extended to such an endeavor. JBST authorizes the Chairman Shri Kamalkanyam ji to complete all necessary formalities." 16. Pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting, the Trust has purchased the property in question under Sale deed dated September 24, 1960. 17. Petitioners have filed their declaration under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act on December 31, 1974. Records disclose that on November 16, 1998, the Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore North Sub-division has written to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department seeking clarification with regard to the declaration filed by the Trust under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act. He has stated that two villages Srigandadakaval and Herohalli were been brought within the Urban Agglomeration area, Bengaluru in the master plan (CDP). Relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: "10. He has stated that two villages Srigandadakaval and Herohalli were been brought within the Urban Agglomeration area, Bengaluru in the master plan (CDP). Relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: "10. On reading of Section 2(o) and 2(g) of the ULC Act, any land situated in an urban agglomeration and not being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in such case only, the land can be considered as vacant land. But in this case the land in question was an agriculture land as on 17.02.1976, on which date the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force and continues to be so even today and of course the area covered by buildings as on that date and the appurtenant area provided for such buildings can be considered as vacant land. 11. According to Sec.19(1)(iv) ULC Act, the Trust are permitted to hold the vacant land and according to which the Trust can hold 342 acres of land which comes within the urban agglomeration area if the judgment rendered in the case of Krishna Bhimrao Deshpande Vs. Land Tribunal Dharwad and Others refereed to above is taken into consideration. The remaining area which lies beyond urban agglomeration area will also to be permitted to be held by the Trust, in view of the fact that the Trust can hold agriculture land upto 20 units as per Sec.63(7) of the Land Reformat Act, 1961." 18. By the above letter, the Assistant Commissioner has sought directions from the State Government whether the Land Tribunal could proceed to determine the surplus land held by the Trust under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act or the Trust may be permitted to hold the land which comes within the purview of Bangalore Urban Agglomeration as per Section 19(1)(i) of the ULC Act. Records do not disclose any further action in this behalf. 19. As can be gathered from order dated October 25, 2005 in W.P. No.46841/2001, on October 29, 2001, the Trust had filed an application before the Land Tribunal for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the lands in question are not agricultural lands. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition has directed the Tribunal to proceed with the matter and dispose of the application filed under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act. 20. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition has directed the Tribunal to proceed with the matter and dispose of the application filed under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act. 20. The Land Tribunal, vide order dated January 12, 2010 has held 213 acres 20 guntas acres as excess land. Reasons recorded in para 11 of its order, show that the Land Tribunal did not accept the contention that the lands in question are not agricultural lands because details with regard to the number of buildings in each survey number, measurement of each buildings, etc were not furnished, but existence of pump house, labour quarters and the well would show that the lands are agricultural in nature. This Court, in the first round of litigation in W.P. No.4311/2010, has held that Trust was not afforded opportunity of hearing and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. After the remand, another spot inspection was conducted. A sketch signed by the Assistant Director for Land Records, 'ADLR' for short, the Tahasildar and others was submitted to the Tribunal. Adverting to Tahasildar's Report and the sketch (Annexure-X), Shri. Holla has argued that there is no piece of cultivable land. 21. As rightly contended by Shri. Holla, the three orders passed by the Land Tribunal show different extent of land as 'excess land'. While setting-aside the second order, this Court has specifically directed the Tribunal to consider the Report as per Annexure-X and thereafter to record a finding with regard to the nature, the extent of land, possession etc. However, the Tribunal has recorded in para 46 of the impugned order that in earlier two Reports dated 10.03.1998 and 31.03.2001 the Tahasildar and the Special Tahasildar respectively, have elaborately considered the nature of the land. Tribunal has further recorded that in the Report dated 28.07.2015, the nature of the land pertaining to Srigandadakaval and Herohalli is not explained. It has recorded that the Report dated July 28, 2015 "cannot be considered" for determination of ceiling limit. On this aspect, Shri. Holla strongly urged that this portion of the order whereby the Land Tribunal has decided not to consider the Report, amounts to gross disobedience of the order of this Court (Annexure-AC). He is right. In that writ petition, State Government and the Land Tribunal were respondents before this Court. State was represented by the then Advocate General. He is right. In that writ petition, State Government and the Land Tribunal were respondents before this Court. State was represented by the then Advocate General. If any party is aggrieved by any order passed by any Court, he may take legal recourse to challenge it. But, if the order is permitted to remain on record, the only inevitable option for the party which suffers the order, is to comply with the order without any demur. Hence, Land Tribunal's stand, is reprehensible. It is impermissible for a Tribunal to ignore any direction given by the High Court. If this is permitted, it shall seriously impact well settled principle of law and procedure. It is unfortunate to note that the Land Tribunal has refused to follow the directions issued by this Court to take note of Annexure-X. It is time, proper remedial action is taken by the State in this behalf. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to take note of the observations made in this paragraph and take appropriate remedial measures and ensure that the Revenue Officers posted as Member/Secretary are properly appraised of the position of law. The action taken in this behalf, shall be placed on the record of this case, within three months. 22. 'Land' is defined in Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 as follows: "2. xxxxxx (18) "land" means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes." (Emphasis Supplied) 23. Thus, it is clear that house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes do not fall within the definition of land under Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms act. 24. Records, in particular, the minutes of the Meeting of the Trust held on June 23, 1958 (Annexure-D), show that after discussing the matter with Acharya Vinobha Bhave for about six months, considering the State of affairs of the Country, the Trust had decided to set-up the Ashram in Bengaluru. 24. Records, in particular, the minutes of the Meeting of the Trust held on June 23, 1958 (Annexure-D), show that after discussing the matter with Acharya Vinobha Bhave for about six months, considering the State of affairs of the Country, the Trust had decided to set-up the Ashram in Bengaluru. It is also recorded in the minutes that Acharya Vinobha Bhave had blessed and concurred to setup the Ashram in Bengaluru and that would be an International Centre for the devout people from all over the world who have faith in Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinobha Bhave's ideals and strive for salvation. With this lofty ideal, the Trust has invested its funds after taking permission from the Collector, Wardha. 25. Thus, the purpose of purchasing the lands by the Trust was to set-up an Ashram. 26. It is true that the Trust has filed Declaration under Section 66 of the Land Reforms Act. Whilst the proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal, State have initiated proceedings under Section 79B of the Land Reforms Act and this Court has quashed the said proceedings reserving liberty to the Land Tribunal to hold enquiry under Section 67(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Act. 27. It is relevant to note that by his letter dated November 16, 1998 (Annexure-L), the Assistant Commissioner and the Chairman of the Land Tribunal has sought directions from the State Government by writing to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, whether the Land Tribunal can proceed to determine the surplus land or the Trust may be permitted to hold the entire land which comes within the purview of Bangalore agglomeration as per Section 19(1)(i) of the ULC Act. Thus, the Tribunal was not sure if it could adjudicate the matter after the land came within the Bangalore Urban agglomeration. As far back in 2001, the Trust has submitted an application before the Land Tribunal to drop the proceedings on the ground that the lands in question are not agricultural lands. The first order of the Land Tribunal is dated January 12, 2010, the second order is dated September 22, 2015 and the third order dated November 28, 2017 is challenged in these proceedings. 28. In substance, the stand of the Government as argued by the Additional Advocate General is that the Trust has purchased agricultural lands. The first order of the Land Tribunal is dated January 12, 2010, the second order is dated September 22, 2015 and the third order dated November 28, 2017 is challenged in these proceedings. 28. In substance, the stand of the Government as argued by the Additional Advocate General is that the Trust has purchased agricultural lands. It has filed the declaration under Section 66 of Land Reforms Act, on its own volition. It is estopped from taking a stand that the lands fall in the 'Urban Agglomeration' after repeal of the ULC Act. 29. It is trite that High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall examine only the decision making process. But as rightly argued by Shri. Holla, despite ample evidence including the Reports by the Tahasildars and the Surveyors, the Land Tribunal has been repeatedly passing orders holding different extent as excess land. This Court has set-aside the earlier two orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. In the second order, the Land Tribunal was directed to record its findings after taking note of Tahasildar's Report as per Annexure-X. But, in the impugned order the Land Tribunal has recorded a regrettable finding that report as per Annexure-X cannot be considered. Reckoned from the date of resolution to purchase the land 63 years have elapsed and from the date of filing the declaration in 1974, nearly half a century (47 years to be precise) has elapsed. Therefore, it would not be expedient to again remit the matter for fresh consideration. 30. In the survey map annexed to the Report dated 28.07.2015, the land details are mentioned as follows: SL DETAILS EXTENT A -G 1 CAMPUS AREA 51-36 (ASHRAMA AREA, VINOBHA TRUSTED KHADI KENDRA) HAVING STRUCTURES CONNECTED WITH PATH WAY 2 UNCULTIVABLE / BUNJARU AREA 45-12 3 VALLEY AND NALA AREA 80-00 (MINIMUM TO MAXIMUM LEVEL TO BE SHOWN IN TOPO MAP, 72M TO 112M 4 ROCKEY / DEEPIT AREA 65-27 5 KHARAB AREA AS PER RTC, SRIGANDADA KAVAL & HEROHALLI 45-24 6 TEMPLE AREA 01-13 7 AREA ACQUIRED BY BDA 61-34 8 BANGALORE-MAGADI MAIN ROAD WIDEN AREA (BBMP) 03-15 9 KEBBEHALLA/GIDDADAKONENAHALLI ROAD 03-03 10 MAJRE AREA 01-19 11 ENCROACHMENT / BUILT AREA 17-34 12 VASATHIRAHITHARA SANGA AREA 14-11 13 TANK AREA SY.NO.15 & SY.50 11-23 GRAND TOTAL 403-11 31. This Report is prepared by the State Government officials. This Report is prepared by the State Government officials. It does not show any cultivable land. 32. The Land Tribunal, in para 27 of the impugned order has recorded that the survey records morefully akarbhand survey settlement clearly establishes that land has been considered as agricultural land. In para 29, it is recorded that as per Section 80 of Land Revenue Act, all lands unless exempted, are leviable with land revenue and Trust's land has not been exempted from paying land revenue. Hence, the lands fall within the definition of 'agricultural land' as per Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act. In para 31, it is recorded that if the land is to be diverted for any other purpose, permission of Deputy Commissioner is necessary. In para 36, it is recorded that it is not open for the Trust to contend that Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 33. Shri. Holla, placing reliance on K.Kunhambu Vs. Chandramma (Smt.) and others, (2004)9 SCC 174 , contended that the lands have been exclusively utilized for non-agricultural activities of the Trust. Therefore, Trust is entitled for the benefit of latter part of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act. 34. In K. Kunhambu, the subject matter of the land was leased for the purpose of running a saw-mill. Appellant had filed Form-7 under Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in respect of a portion of land. Both the land owner and the tenant challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal, before this Court. Keeping in view the nature of the lands, the specific object and purpose of the lease, the monthly rental provided, this Court came to the conclusion that the land in question did not satisfy the definition of land contained in Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act and the appellant therein could not be held as a tenant. The Supreme Court of India dismissing the appeals, has held that the provision for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes envisaged under the Land Revenue Act cannot be pressed into aid to deny or deprive the benefit of latter part of the definition of land 'in Section 2(A)(18)' of the Land Reforms Act, to a land owner on the basis of its exclusive use for non-agricultural purposes. The relevant passage reads as follows: "10.………….. The relevant passage reads as follows: "10.………….. The provision for conversion of the user of the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, as envisaged under the Revenue Act, cannot be pressed into aid to deny or deprive the benefit of the latter part of the definition of “land” in Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act to a landowner on the basis of its exclusive user for non-agricultural purposes. In substance whereas the past exclusive and continuous use for non-agricultural purposes becomes relevant for extending benefit of latter part of Section 2(A)(18), Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act becomes relevant only for future conversions of an agricultural land for its non-agricultural user. But in this case on hand even long prior to the coming into force of the Land Reforms Act on 2-10-1965 or the Revenue Act, the land was shown to have been used for non-agricultural purposes of running sawmill industry and by virtue of the very definition of “land” in the Land Reforms Act which does not seem to have been either specifically noticed or considered in the earlier case, no exception could be taken to the decision of the High Court, according relief to the first respondent by sustaining her claim." (Emphasis Supplied) 35. Shri. Holla has next relied upon following passage in ITC Ltd., Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd and Others., (2018) 15 SCC 99 and argued that the purpose for which the land is used is relevant: "39. The Corporate Loan Agreement [Dated 26-2-2010] that deals with the mortgage in question in the relevant clause [Clause 2.1, part (b)] reads as follows: “The borrower shall create mortgage on exclusive basis on the ‘Park Hyatt Goa Resort and Spa’ Hotel Property admeasuring 1, 82, 225 sq m with a built-up area of 25182 sq m situated at 263 C, Arossim, Canasaulim Goa.” The mortgage is thus intended to cover the entire property of the Goa Hotel. Prima facie, apart from the fact that the parties themselves understood that the lands in question are not agricultural, it also appears that having regard to the use to which they are put and the purpose of such use, they are indeed not agricultural." (Emphasis supplied) 36. Placing reliance on para 42 in the same judgment, he submitted that the character of the land cannot be decided only by revenue entries. The relevant portion reads as follows: "42. Placing reliance on para 42 in the same judgment, he submitted that the character of the land cannot be decided only by revenue entries. The relevant portion reads as follows: "42. xxxx In any event, having regard to the character of the land and the purpose for which it is set apart, we are of the view that the land in question is not an agricultural land and merely because it stood as such in the revenue entries, even though the application made for such conversion lies pending till date." (Emphasis supplied) 37. Adverting to para 44 in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samithi and others, (2008)12 SCC 675 , and paras 15 to 18 in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010)11 SCC 159 , Shri. Holla submitted that there is no estoppel against the statute. 38. Shri. Aruna Shyam, learned AAG has placed reliance on paras 26 and 27 in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead through Legal representatives) Vs. Purushotham and Others, (2020)6 SCC 387 and contended that the Trust cannot approbate and reprobate. 39. In reply, Shri. Holla has rightly replied that Bhagwat Sharan is in respect of two private individuals in a suit and the ratio of the said authority cannot be applied in this case. 40. Learned AAG next relied upon para 10 to 12 in Shri. urendra Nayak Vs. A.M. Mohammed Shafi, ILR 2016 KAR 4162 and submitted that a party to a litigation cannot be permitted to change his stand. 41. The next authority relied upon by learned AAG is Abdul Khadar Vs. Land Tribunal, ILR 1996 KAR 1446 to contend that the authority is required to find out the extent of land held by the declarant as on 01.03.1974. 42. Learned AAG also relied upon State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd. (1995)1 SCC 295 and contended that by using a land for non-agricultural purpose, would not convert the agricultural land automatically as, it would render Section 95(2) of the Land Revenue Act negatory. 43. The Trust, has purchased the land to set-up an Ashram. The Tahasildar's report as per Annexure-X does not show any cultivable land. Though this Court, while remanding the matter has directed the Tribunal to consider the same, the Tribunal has expressly stated that it cannot be considered. 43. The Trust, has purchased the land to set-up an Ashram. The Tahasildar's report as per Annexure-X does not show any cultivable land. Though this Court, while remanding the matter has directed the Tribunal to consider the same, the Tribunal has expressly stated that it cannot be considered. The main argument on behalf of the State is, land was purchased as agricultural land and the revenue records show that lands are agricultural in nature. In almost similar circumstances, in the case of K.Kunhambu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the provision for conversion for non-agricultural purposes under the Revenue Act, cannot be pressed into aid to deny the benefit of latter part of definition of land under Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act. The authority in the case of Shankara Textile Mills, relied upon by learned AAG has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.Kunhambu. In the case of ITC Ltd., the Apex Court has held that land is not an agricultural land, merely because the revenue entries showed as such. 44. The aims and objects of the Trust recorded in the Trust Deed appended to the writ petition are to serve the cause of distressed and downtrodden humanity irrespective of caste or creed on the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinobha Bhave. The application given to the Collector, Wardha clearly shows the purpose of purchasing the lands is to start an Ashram near Bengaluru. The Revenue report and survey sketch as per Annexure-X do not show any cultivable land. Despite direction by this Court, to consider the report as per Annexure-X, the Tribunal has refused to do so. The principle of law laid down in Kunhambu's case, is fully applicable to the facts of this case because in Kunhambu, the Apex Court was dealing with Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act, which is precisely the subject matter in the first writ petition. In Kunhambu, land was used for running a saw-mill and in this case, Trust has set up an Ashram. Thus, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal run counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kunhambu and ITC Ltd. 45. It is sad that an Ashram to propogate Gandhian values and envisaged by Acharya Vinobha Bhave has been struggling in legal battle for decades. Thus, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal run counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kunhambu and ITC Ltd. 45. It is sad that an Ashram to propogate Gandhian values and envisaged by Acharya Vinobha Bhave has been struggling in legal battle for decades. In the meanwhile, Trust has lost 78 acres of valuable land due to acquisition by BDA and encroachment. 46. So far as W.P. No.3848/2021 is concerned, the Trust is aggrieved by Deputy Commissioner's endorsement dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-C) wherein, it is stated that Trust's request for conversion of land cannot be considered due to pendency of writ petitions mentioned in the endorsement. The said writ petitions have been disposed of. Hence, there is no impediment for consideration of Trust's application. 47. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions merit consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petitions No.55344/2017 and 3848/2021 are allowed. (b) Impugned order in Writ petition No.55344/2017 dated 28th November 2017 (Annexure-A) in LRF (C.R.) No. 2099/1974-75, passed by Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru is quashed declaring that the lands in question fall within the latter part of definition under Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act and hence, are not agricultural lands within the meaning of Section 2(18). (c) The respondents shall deliver to the Trust, all that piece and parcel of lands, the possession of which they have taken on 07.12.2017 as per three mahazars viz., Annexures -AAH, AAH1 and AAH2 forthwith. (d) The endorsement dated 08.01.2016 as per Annexure-C in W.P. No.3848/2021 is quashed. In view of declaration that lands are not agricultural in nature, no further orders are necessary. However, liberty is reserved to the Trust to seek conversion of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. Nos.37/1P and 40/1 of Herohalli village, Bangalore, if so advised. If an application is filed by the Trust, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same expeditiously in an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of such fresh application. (e) The Registrar General shall send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for compliance of directions in para 21 of this order. No costs.