As per case facts, forty-two defence force members bought land in Bangalore Rural District (414 acres) and formed a cooperative society. They applied for land conversion for non-agricultural purposes under ... Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Permissions were granted or deemed granted. The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) appealed, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. BWSSB then filed writ petitions in the High Court, which allowed them, quashing the conversion orders, stating that a new village/township needed State Government decision and notification under the Planning Act and Land Revenue Act. DLF later acquired these lands and submitted a revised scheme for developing 270 country villas, which the State Government approved in 1991. Public interest litigation challenged this approval, arguing adverse effects on drinking water, pollution, and illegality due to non-compliance with statutory procedures for establishing a new township. The question arose whether the High Court erred in quashing the State Government's order approving DLF's scheme, specifically if the State Government had failed to consider public interest, pollution, and water depletion, or if it had bypassed the mandatory procedures for declaring a new township as required by the Land Revenue Act and Planning Act, thereby making the approval illegal and arbitrary. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the State Government had indeed considered public interest, pollution control measures, and water supply concerns, and had taken views from relevant departments. It held that the proposed scheme for villas, while large, did not automatically constitute a 'new township' requiring a formal declaration under the Land Revenue Act at that initial stage. The Court also clarified that the power for land conversion under Section 95 of the Act, though primarily for the Deputy Commissioner, was validly exercised by the State Government in this composite case. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was in error and overturned its judgment, allowing DLF's appeals and dismissing the original writ petitions.