JUDGMENT 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. 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 based on the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Hosakote, the Deputy Commissioner has granted 30 guntas of land out of 1 acre 2 guntas for the purpose of construction of a school building. If it is so, the remaining 12 guntas is continued as a burial ground only. 8. If it is so, the remaining 12 guntas is continued as a burial ground only. 8. On perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, there is no order passed by him to dereserve the burial ground in accordance with law. Only based on the report of the Tahsildar, he has granted the land for the construction of the School and playground in respect of the land reserved as burial ground from time immemorial. 9. Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as hereunder: 71. Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.--Subject to the general orders of the State Government, Survey Officers, whilst survey operations are proceeding under this Act, and at any other time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons in any village or portions of a village, for free pasturage for the village cattle, for forest reserves or for any other public purpose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner; and in the disposal of lands under Section 69 due regard shall be had to all such special assignments. 10. Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules reads as hereunder: 108-I Certain lands not to be granted.--[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, lands assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act, and lands described in revenue records, as Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthop Tankbed, Phut Kharab halla, [x x x x x], burial grounds and such lands, which in the opinion of the Government is required for public purpose, shall not be granted: Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to lands set-apart for free pasturage under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will be governed by Rule 97. [(2) No Government land within the limits of a city or town, [shall not be] granted to any individual or a private institution. [(2) No Government land within the limits of a city or town, [shall not be] granted to any individual or a private institution. All such lands shall be reserved for public or Government purposes to provide for public needs of a growing city or town: Provided that the lands which have not lost the characteristics for which they were reserved [shall not be] declassified and granted or leased for any other purposes. 11. On a combined reading of Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, it is clear that there is a power vested in the Deputy Commissioner to dereserve certain lands which comes within the purview of Section 71. But within the provisions of Section 71, burial ground does not find a place. 12. On perusal of Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, land reserved for burial ground cannot be divested and cannot be granted for any other purpose. Without following Rule 108-I and wrongly applying the provisions of Section 71, if any land reserved for burial ground is granted for construction of a school, the same has to be set aside only on the aforesaid ground. But the learned Single Judge has not considered either provisions of Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, but the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and confirming the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner. In addition to that, what we have noticed is, the Deputy Commissioner has permitted for construction of a school building and playground in 30 guntas of land and in allowing the remaining 12 guntas of land as a burial ground, the Court has to put a question to itself in regard to the granting of 30 guntas of land for construction of a school building adjoining the burial ground. The construction of a school adjoining to any portion of the burial ground is not in the interest of the school children. Therefore, the writ appeal has to be allowed. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The construction of a school adjoining to any portion of the burial ground is not in the interest of the school children. Therefore, the writ appeal has to be allowed. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12127 of 2008, dated 8-4-2010 is hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by the 'SDMC' is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 170 of 2008, dated 26-8-2008 is hereby confirmed.