ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order and quash the Government opinion bearing No. HUD 90 TTP 91 dated 1.7.1999 in Annexure-A, Annexure-B No. NAE 176 BMR 2006 Bangalore dated 17.9.2007 and Annexure-C No. NAE 264 BMR 2007 Bangalore dated 15-4-2008 as illegal and arbitrary exercise of administration powers and beyond the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. (b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order and quash the demand by 3rd Respondent bearing No. Ayo PRA/LAO/63/2010-2011 dated 15.2.2011 vide Annexure-K, in so far as the demand of the betterment charges is concerned prima-facie amounts to double taxation. (c) To declare that, Section 2(1-b) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 in so far as treating education as commercial for the purpose of recovery of charges, cess, including change of land use and construction of buildings for educational purpose is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the same being the arbitrary and unreasonable classification. (d) Issue such other writ order as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances. 2. The petitioner claims to be a Charitable Trust providing education to students at affordable cost without discrimination of caste or religion. The petitioner set up an Academy to award Diploma in Nautical Sciences. For the purpose of construction of the same, the petitioner had purchased 7 acres 9 guntas of land at Guddanahalli, Anekal taluk carved from out of Sy.No. 62 and 63 which had been converted for non-agricultural educational purpose on 28.4.2010 and 12.3.2010 respectively. 3. When the petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent for grant of plan sanction on 20.12.2010, 3rd Respondent vide its letter dated 15.02.2011 called upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 22,00,000/- towards development charges, supervisory charges to consider the development plan. Apart therefrom ‘Lake Rejuvenation charges’ was also called upon to be paid which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 25224-25227/2011, which petition came to be dismissed. 22,00,000/- towards development charges, supervisory charges to consider the development plan. Apart therefrom ‘Lake Rejuvenation charges’ was also called upon to be paid which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 25224-25227/2011, which petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 6.4.2010 had informed 3rd respondent that establishment of the educational institution was for carrying out charitable education activities and was not to make any profits and therefore, could not be called upon to make payments of the demands made vide demand letter dated 15.2.2011. The same not being accepted and the development plan not having been sanctioned, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel would submit that the levy of fee is sought to be made under Rule 37-A of Karnataka Planning Authorities Rules, 1965 which would be only applicable if there is change of land use granted by the Planning authority and thereafter development of land and building is permitted. His submission is that since there is no change of land user which has been granted in the present matter, only for the purpose of sanction of building, fee cannot be levied under Rule 37-A of the Rules. 5. He further submits that conversion of land having been granted after obtaining the opinion of the Town Planning Authority, the Town Planning Authority having acceded to and recommended the conversion, there is no need of change of land use, more so when the zoning regulation permit the use of land which is classified as agricultural zone under the Zonal classification for an education institution, if an application is made to the Planning Authority. On these grounds, he submits that the claim which has been made by 3rd respondent is required to be quashed. 6. Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for 3rd respondent would however submit that, the application having been made in the year 2010, the property being located in a city with a population of 10 lakhs and above what was required to be made payment of was a sum Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. of floor area of all floors of the building proposed to be constructed. 4/- per sq. mtr. of floor area of all floors of the building proposed to be constructed. Rule 37-A not only deals with change of use of land but also deals with development of land or building and since there is disjunctive ‘or’ which has been used fee could be applied to any of these three stages, i.e. at the first stage of change of land use or grant of development plan or at the stage of sanction of building plan. No such amount having been collected at the time of conversion of land, the demand now made by 3rd respondent when the building plan submitted for sanction is proper and would be covered under Rule 37-A. On the basis of the above, he submits that the petition requires to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Nithyananda K.R. learned AGA for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. Perused papers. 8. What was occurred in the year 2010 is the conversion of 3 acres 2 guntas from agricultural to nonagricultural education purposes. Another 4 acres 7 guntas is also converted from agricultural to non agricultural education purposes on the same day. Thus, the entire 7 acre 9 guntas had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural education purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The conversion under Section 95 is dealienation of land which is reserved for agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes and in this case, for educational purposes. The said conversion is completely different from change of land use as contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, more so in terms of proviso to Section 14, wherein it is made clear that where change of land user under Section 14 is sought for or diversion of agricultural to non-agricultural purposes is sought for, it shall not be so permitted unless permission is obtained under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for such diversion. Therefore, conversion of land is a condition precedent for change of land use under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, conversion of land is a condition precedent for change of land use under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In terms of proviso to sub-section (2) to Section 95, application made for conversion of land from agriculture to some other purposes shall not be refused if the diversion is in accordance with the purpose of land use specified in Master plan and is deemed to have been granted if conversion fee is paid. 9. In the present case, the land was admittedly agricultural in nature, both under the Zonal classification, as also under the revenue classification. It is for that reason that on 28.04.2010 the petitioner obtained change of land use from agricultural to nonagricultural- education purposes. No change of land use was required to be obtained in respect of the said land on account of the fact that for the purpose of use for which the land is put to is educational purpose which is covered under the zonal classification applicable to the Anekal Planning Authority. Thus, once the land is converted from agricultural to nonagricultural-education purposes, the same could be put to use for educational purposes without seeking for change of land use. However, in terms of Rule 37-A if an application is made for development of land or building, necessary fees are required to be paid by such an applicant. 10. The application having been filed in the year 2010, as per Rule 37-A then applicable, a sum of Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. of floor area of all the floors of the building sanctioned ought to be paid. However, in the year 2020, there is a drastic amendment which has been made to the said provision increasing the amounts, but at the same time providing exemption to institutions involved in charitable, religious and philanthropic purposes of non profit nature, such as old age home, child care centres, as the case may be and certified by Deputy Commissioner of concerned districts to be of non-profit nature. The petitioner, admittedly is a charitable trust which is a non-profit institution. Thus, in my considered opinion, the same would come under Note-1 to Table-II of Rule 37-A as it now stands. The provision as it now stands is required to be considered for the reason of any application to be processed by 3rd respondent as on today. The petitioner, admittedly is a charitable trust which is a non-profit institution. Thus, in my considered opinion, the same would come under Note-1 to Table-II of Rule 37-A as it now stands. The provision as it now stands is required to be considered for the reason of any application to be processed by 3rd respondent as on today. Since the application of the petitioner will also to be processed as on today, the benefit if any available should be made available to a citizen who has made an application. 11. Taking into consideration Note-1 to Table-2, I am of the opinion that the petitioner would be exempted from making payment of any amount subject to production of a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of concerned district in which the petitioner is situate certifying the petitioner’s activities are of not profit nature. Once the same is submitted, 3rd respondent would have to consider the same in terms of Note-1 to Table-2. 12. The contention of 3rd respondent is that though there may not be change of land user as such granted, but the land is put to use for educational purposes, there would be a change in the usage, therefore, levy of fee under Rule 37-A(1a) to Table-I is proper and correct. 13. The said contention, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted in this case for the simple reason that the usage for educational purposes put to by the petitioner of its land is permitted in agricultural zone also requiring no change in land use, as such, Table-1 to Rule 37-A would have no role to play. It is only Table-2 under Rule 37-A (1b) which deals with development of building which would be applicable under which the amount mentioned is Rs. 10/-. 14. As such, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued. The demand notice dated 15.02.2011 Annexure-K is quashed. (ii) Respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner as on the present date in terms of Table-2, as directed above.