(1) THE dispute in this appeal by special leave relates to an area of 19.36 acres of land which was not excluded by the authorities under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act while determining the ceiling and surplus area of the appellant.

(2) EXEMPTION for this area was claimed by the appellant on the ground that he had applied for the conversion of this land into non-agricultural land on 17-4-1973, but the permission for conversion was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Sedam, by his order dated 24-7-1974.

(3) THE Land Tribunal, Sedam, as also the High Court went by the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Sedam, and came to the conclusion that since the permission for conversion was granted after 17-3-1974, it would be of no benefit to the appellant. In recording this finding, the Tribunal as also the High Court, both, overlooked the provision of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which provides as under:

"95. (5) Where the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-section (2) within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted."

(4) UNDER this provision a legal fiction has been created to the effect that if the applicant is not informed of the order on the conversion application within four months from the date on which the application was made, conversion shall be deemed to have been passed.

(5) SINCE in the instant case the order granting conversion was passed on 24-7-1974, i.e., well after the period of four months, the provision of Section 95(5) of the Act became immediately applicable and therefore the application shall, fictionally, be deemed to have been granted on the expiry of four months from the date on which it was made. Since the application was made on 17-4-1973, it shall be deemed to have been granted on 17-8- 1973 which is a date earlier than the relevant date, namely, 17-3-1974 and, therefore, the said area could not have been treated as part of agricultural holding of the appellant for purposes of determining the ceiling on surplus area under the Act.

(6) IN this view of the matter the judgment of the Tribunal as also that of the High Court so far as the area of 19.36 acres (Survey No. 16) is concerned, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal as also that passed by the High Court are set aside with a direction that the area of 19.36 acres shall not be treated as part of the holding of the appellant for purpose of determining the ceiling and surplus area under the Act. The writ petition is allowed to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs.