K.L. Manjunath , J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The legality and correctness of the order dated 8-4-2010 passed in W.P. No. 12127 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge is called in question in these appeals.

2. The appellants are residents of Dasarahalli Village in Hosakote Taluk. They were respondents 13 and 18 before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed by the School Development and Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SDMC' for short) and Government Higher Primary School, Dasarahalli. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 11-11-2006, the writ petitioner passed a resolution to construct a new school building, since the existing building was insufficient to accommodate the increasing strength of the students. Therefore, a request was made by the 'SDMC' to grant 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. No. 78, which was originally reserved as a graveyard, for the purpose of construction of the school building. Based on the request of the writ petitioner, the Tahsildar sent a report stating that the land is fit for construction of a school building, though it is reserved for burial ground, the same is not being used and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District to consider the request of the School. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28-4-2007 granted 30 guntas out of 1 acre 2 guntas of land for the purpose of construction of a school building for the benefit of Government Primary School of Dasarahalli. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was questioned by the Villagers by filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the granting of land which was reserved for graveyard in order to construct a school building is contrary to Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was questioned by the members of the 'SDMC' by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Jude has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the ground that if the Villagers are in need of burial ground in future, they can give a representation to the Government. This order is called in question in this appeal.

3. Sri CM. Nagabushana, learned Counsel for the appellants taking us through Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, contends that certain lands reserved for a specific public purpose cannot be divested by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Government. According to him, the order of grant passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 28-4-2007 is without following the Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, since the learned Single Judge has not at all considered Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate relying upon Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 contends that the Deputy Commissioner has powers to divest the land and grant the same for different purpose. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the 'SDMC' reiterating the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate submits that no dead bodies were buried and land was never used as burial ground. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is.--

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in the background of Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules?

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the following points are not in dispute:

That Sy. No. 78 has been reserved by the Government for the purpose of burial ground. It is also not in dispute that on the request of the school authorities and