The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural lands falling within the Outline Development Plan or Comprehensive Development Plan prepared for Bangalore Planning area under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

( 1 ) IN these appeals the following important questions of law arise for consideration :

(1) Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District has the power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act in respect of lands falling within the area covered by the Outline development Plan or Comprehensive Development Plan for the City of Bangalore prepared and published under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the planning Act' for short) and

(2) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal could have issued direction to the Deputy commissioner to grant the conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 as sought for by the respondents in these appeals.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow:

Respondent-1 M. Narayanappa, filed an application for grant of permission to divert land measuring 1. 11 acres in Survey No. 159/1 and 1. 21 acres in Survey No. 159/2 of Bilekahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The respondent in the second appeal M. Ramakrishna filed an application for grant of permission to divert agricultural lands measuring 1. 22 acres in Survey No. 159/3 and 1. 08 acres in Survey No. 159/4 of the same village. The other respondent M. Gopal filed an application for grant of permission to divert the agricultural land measuring 2. 00 acres in Survey No. 159/3 of same village for non agricultural use. The Special deputy Commissioner by order dated 18-8-1982 rejected the applications. The wording of the endorsements issued to all the 3 applicants rejecting their request is similar. Therefore it is sufficient to set out the contents of one of the endorsement Annexure -'a' it reads :

"no. ALN (S) SR. 18/82-83 Office of the Deputy commissioner, bangalore district, Bangalore, dated : official MEMORANDUM sub: Sanction of Conversion of an extent of 1-22 -1. 0 out of Section No. 159/5 + 159/4 of belakahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk in favour of Sri Begur Hobli, bangalore South Taluk in favour of Sri m. Ramakrishna for non-agricultural Industrial/ residential purpose. Ref: Letter No. BDA/tpm/04/82-83 dt. 12-7-82 of the BDA, Bangalore. The request of Sri M. Ramakrishna, No. 101, Bull Temple Road. Bangalore for sanction of conversion of an extent of 1-22 + 1-0. 8 acres out of Sy. No. (A) 159/3 + 159/4 of Belakahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from Agricultural to non-agricultural, Industrial/ residential Commercial purposes of rejected on the following grounds : 1. the proposed land lies in the rural tract as per the approval of CDP of Bangalore. Copy forwarded to: 1. Chairman, BDA/town Planning Officer, Bangalore. 2. Tahsildar, North Taluk, Bangalore, etc. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the respondent preferred appeals before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the contention urged for the appellants therein was that the deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the application except for reasons set out in sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act and further all that the Deputy Commissioner could do was to impose certain conditions in public interest which could be imposed in view of sub-section (4) of Section 95, in order to safeguard the public interest. The learned State representative however submitted that the reasons given by the Special Deputy Commissioner was correct and there was no ground to interfere.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal however allowed the appeals relying on the Judgment of this Court in irannavar v. STATE OF MYSORE, 1974 (1) KLJ Sh. Notes Item 230 The Tribunal held that in view of the said decision the ground on which Deputy Commissioner could reject the applications were those specified in Section 95 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In the result, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and directed him to grant the permission as prayed for by th