Judgment : 1. Writ petition by persons who had aspired to set up hotels and after obtaining clearance from the single window agency had approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking for conversion of certain parcels of agricultural land in and around Hoskote town for non-agricultural purpose, but whose efforts came to be frustrated because of the endorsement dated 27-8-2009 (copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, indicating, inter alia, that as the subject lands are within the agricultural zone as per the interim master plan, there is no scope for conversion etc. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for quashing of endorsements at Annexure-A to C passed in respect of the applications filed by the petitioners. 3. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 4 are represented by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA and respondents 2 and 3 — planning authorities — are represented by Sri S.G. Pandit, Advocate. 4. Statements of objections have been filed by respondents 1 and 4 and respondents 2 and 3. It is pointed out that conversion is not possible in terms of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and even deemed provision cannot operate, as there is a statutory bar etc. 5. Submission of Sri M.A. Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the first instance the authorities, particularly the State Government, have encouraged the petitioners to set up hotel industries assuring them all incentives and facilities as well as full cooperation; that after the single window agency had cleared the projects of the petitioners and when the petitioners had applied for conversion, the Deputy commissioner had also indicated conversion fee payable and the amount is also paid and after all these developments, going back just because an interim master plan intervening is neither proper nor permitted in law; that the authorities are estopped from going back on their assurance; that petitioners have invested huge sums and have made efforts for setting up hotel industries at the place and therefore the impugned endorsements quashed and the respondent-authorities directed to grant conversion of the land for non-agricultural use. 6. 6. Sri Sebastian, by drawing attention to the interim order dated 11-6-2010 passed by this Court in these petitions, submits that this Court had permitted the petitioners to apply afresh for conversion and orders to be passed thereon and to submit a report to this Court, but nothing is being done by the authorities so far and therefore also, a mandamus should be issue etc. 7. An interim order cannot be a criterion for passing final orders on examination for the merits of the matter. It is not necessary to go into the nature of the interim order or what developments have taken place thereafter. What is in question before this Court is the validity or otherwise of the endorsements at Annexure-A to C. 8. As I find no illegality or violation of any statutory provisions committed by the authorities in issuing the impugned endorsements. I do not find any occasion to quash these endorsements. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed, however, reserving liberty to the petitioners pursuing their efforts and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.