K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) ). WRIT Petition No. 1[35473] of 2000 is filed by the State seeking quashing of the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal no. 438 of 1999 at Annexure-A.

( 2 ) THE other writ petitions are filed by the petitioners in respect of the same subject-matter which relates to a request for conversion of the lands bearing Sy. No. 291/1 measuring 24 guntas, Sy. No. 292 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas, Sy. No. 293/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas, Sy. No. 293/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in all 6 acres 1 guntas situate in kodakola Village of Mysore Taluk. The petitioner made an application seeking conversion of the said lands for the non-agricultural purpose with a view to form housing layout. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request for conversion on the ground that no proper road provisions are shown in the layout, layout plan submitted for seeking conversion. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appeal came to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal in No. 438 of 1999.

( 3 ) THE Appellate Tribunal on perusal of the material produced, as a matter of fact comes to the conclusion that proper road provisions have been made and accordingly, held that the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and allowed the appeal and directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant the required permission after collecting necessary fee. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid necessary fee by making remittance and also furnished fresh necessary agreements with a required undertaking to be submitted to the authority before granting of conversion. Although, on the part of the petitioner all the required formalities have been completed, the Assistant Commissioner has not acted upon and kept the matter in cold storage. Therefore, the writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking mandamus against the respondent to consider their applications and grant necessary conversion order.

( 4 ) THE State feels equally aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the appellate Authority that the order of permitting granting of conversion is illegal since the lands in question come within the green belt area and by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 95 (3) (b) of the Land revenue Act, the request for conversion cannot be granted.

( 5 ) ON the question of the objection raised by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the road provisions, although, the Tribunal has held on the question of fact that road provisions have been provided, but nonetheless, it is to be appreciated that it is a too premature a stage for the Assistant Commissioner to have insisted upon showing the necessary road provisions in the layout plan. After the conversion, the layout plan prepared has to be approved by the authorities concerned, like Town planning Authority and the Municipal or Corporation Authorities etc. Therefore, at the stage of conversion, it would be improper to insist for the production of a full-fledged layout plan and also it is not within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to insist on the production of such layout plan or to find fault in the layout plan in the manner done.

( 6 ) ON the question of green belt area, the Government Pleader relied on the ruling of this Court in State of Karnataka v Jayashree , wherein it has been held that there can be no permission to divert the agricultural land within the green belt area for other purposes. The said decision is rendered while considering the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act in conjunction with the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the said decision deals with the limitations envisaged for grant of permission in accordance with the urban development plan and comprehensive development prepared under karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

( 7 ) ON the other hand the Counsel for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 34573 of 2000 relied on the u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document