RAMA JOIS, J. - (1.) The State Government has nullified the order of this Court in the order impugned in these petitions, is the most extraordinary feature disclosed in this case, in that, in the impugned order the State Government has directed that several orders made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act according permission for conversion of 414 acres of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, to wit, for establishing a housing colony on the banks of Arkavati River near Tippagondanahalli Water Reservoir, one of the sources of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore, which were quashed by this Court, in Writ Petitions Nos. 19919 to 19954 and 21172 to 21177/1982 presented by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which order was confirmed in Writ Appeals Nos. 744 to 785 of 1987, shall continue.
(2.) The above ground urged by the petitioners against the impugned order caused consternation to us, as it was beyond our comprehension that the Government had done so, but after hearing. We are amazed to find that the Government has actually done so.
(3.) The brief and undisputed facts of this case are these :- (I) Forty-two individuals purchased agricultural lands on various dates in 1978-79, in all 414 acres in extent situate in the villages of Bangalore Rural District, on the Banks of Arkavati River within a distance of about 2 Kms. from Chamaraja Sagar Water Reservoir at Thippagondanahalli which has been one of the major source of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore. They formed a society called Arkavati Farmers Co-operative Society. Thereafter, the individual land owners totalling 42, submitted applications to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act praying for permision to convert the said lands for non-agricultural purpose. The society also addressed a letter to the Director of Town Planning seeking his approval for the establishment of a Township consisting of more than 700 houses on the said 414 acres of land. The Director of Town Planning in his letter dated 21-5-1979 stated that the development of the area would result in a new township with a population of about 20,000 persons and absorb future population that would otherwise come to the City of Bangalore. He recommended the granting of permission for conversion subject to certain conditions. By order dated 5/06/1979 the Special Deputy Commissioner granted permission for conversion of the lands imposing several conditions, one of them was that the layout and building plan should be got duly approved by the Director of Town Planning. Thereafter, on the application filed by the Society to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the latter granted no objection certificate for establishing the township on the aforesaid 414 acres of land on 29-11-1979. (II) The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('Water Board' for short) the statutory authority constituted and The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1984 entrusted with the function of ensuring supply of water to the City, filed appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner according permission for conversion of the lands for non-agricultural purpose on the ground that establishing of a township near such a sensitive area i.e., the source of supply of drinking water to the lakhs of people in the City of Bangalore was injuries to public interests and it would result not only in the pollution but also depletion of water in the river and the reservoir. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Water Board holding that it had no locus standi to present the appeals and its grievance was imaginary. (III) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Water Board filed Writ Petitions before this Court questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal as also the legality of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under S. 95 of the Act. The Water Board also challenged the deemed conversions said to have been secured by certain individuals on the ground that the Special Deputy Commissioner had failed to inform the applicants his decision on the application for conversion, within four months, in view of Sub-Sec. (5) of S. 95 of the Act. Swami, J., who decided the Writ Petitions held that having regard to the language of Sub-Sec.;