Manjunath, J.

Petitioners in these two petitions are claiming to be the owners of different extent of lands in Sy.No.57/2, 57/1, 54/1 and 55 of Nagavara village are challenging the legality and correctness of the action of the Government in extinguishing the existing cart-track between Sy.No.51 to 60 of Nagavara village by invoking its powers under Sec.68(1) and (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as `The Act') and thereafter granting extinguished cart-track area to R-4.

2. According to the petition averments, they are the residents of Nagavara village. Aforesaid lands are agricultural lands and a cart road running between Sy.Nos.55 to 60 is the only access to their agricultural land and that the said cart road was being used from time immemorial and that the same was never extinguished and that the Government behind the back of the petitioners and other villagers at the instance of R-4 has notified for extinction of cart track as if the same is not in use and the same is disused and existence of such cart-track is of no use for the public and without issuing any notice to the adjoining owners and more particularly to the petitioners has notified the same under Sec.68(5) of the Act and thereafter the same has been sold by the Government in favour of R-4 as per Annexure-H in W.P.48588/04 for a total consideration of Rs.24,63,973/-. Present petition is filed to cancel the order granting land in favour of R-4 by quashing Annexure-H dated 4.12.2004 and also to quash the Notifications issued under Sec.68(1) and (5) of the Act dated 5.10.2004 as per Annexure-E and as per Annexure-F dated 6.10.2004.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, R-1 to 3 colluding with R-4 in connivance has extinguished the cart-track without hearing the petitioners and thereby the ingress and egress to the lands of the petitioners has been closed once for all and that the land granted to R-4 is in contravention of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Karnataka Land Grant Rules. It is further contended that no spot inspection or mahazar was drawn by the respondents before notifying under Sec.68(1) and (5) of the Act. It is also their case that since the land in question is situated within 8 kms. From the Municipal corporation limits and also on the ground that the land falls within the CMC area of Byatarayanapura, land could not have been granted to R-4 without concurrence of the aforesaid two local authorities.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents without considering that on either side of the cart track several houses have come up and they are using the cart track to reach their houses and also ring road and other connecting roads. Therefore, petitioners request the court to quash the grant of land to R-4.

5. During the course of the arguments, counsel for the parties also submitted that Sec.68(1) and (5) of the Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case since the cart-track is the private property of the petitioners and when it is the private property of the petitioners, question of invoking Sec.68(1) and (5) of the Act or granting the same in favour of R-4 is without jurisdiction. According to him, out of the un-reserved karab land fallen within the lands of the petitioners, a private cart track had been made and therefore it cannot be considered as a cart road reserved for public purposes and requests the court to quash the proceedings.

6. R-4 has filed a detailed counter. According to R-4, R-4 is a neighbour of the petitioners and he has purchased the property situated in Sy.No.55 and 54/1 and so also 53/1 since dis-used cart road was a public road reserved as a reserved karab and since the same was not used by any agriculturists since the entire village had lost its agricultural character on account of its inclusion within BBMP and Municipal council area. On account of the development of the City and construction of the buildings and carving of sites in all a