ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. 2 guntas in Sy. No. 226/1 and 8 guntas in Sy. No. 226/2, in all 10 guntas of land situated at Mayasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, from out of 3 acres, was assigned for a public road by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act') by order dated 16-8-2002, which when called in question in Appeal No. 568 of 2010 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, was confirmed by dismissal of the appeal by order dated 15-11-2012, Annexure-A. Hence these petitions. Facts not in dispute are that 3 acres of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 215 and 219 of Mayasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was subject-matter of Devadaya Inam which stood vested in State consequent upon the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, whence, Chinnappa, husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 applied for regrant and obtained an order regranting the land. The said order when questioned before the Competent Court was set aside and proceeding remanded for consideration afresh, whereafter, by order dated 14-11-2007, regrant was directed in favour of said Chinnappa. 2. It appears that respondent 3, resident of Mayasandra and also owner of certain lands located on the hind side of petitioners' land, as also other villagers and owners of other lands in the vicinity approached the Deputy Commissioner for formation of a road through the lands belonging to Chinnappa in Sy. Nos. 215 and 219. The Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 71 of the 'Act' while recording a finding that land had vested in the State under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, therefore, was Government land, concluded that 10 guntas of said land can be assigned for special purpose i.e., for a road, being a public purpose so as to provide connectivity to landlords in possession of lands to which they had no access. 3. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal found favour with the said finding and conclusion and dismissed the appeal by the order impugned. 4. The core question for decision making is whether in the light of the regrant under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in respect of 3 acres of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 3. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal found favour with the said finding and conclusion and dismissed the appeal by the order impugned. 4. The core question for decision making is whether in the light of the regrant under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in respect of 3 acres of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 215 and 219 of Mayasandra Village in favour of Chinnappa, Deputy Commissioner could exercise jurisdiction under Section 71 to assign 10 guntas from out of the said land for a special purpose? Section 71 of the 'Act', reads thus: "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." 5. If regard is had to the aforesaid statutory provision, it is for the Deputy Commissioner who at any time may set apart lands which are the property of the State Government and not in lawful occupation of any person for a special purpose. 6. In the facts noticed supra, once the regrant of the land measuring 3 acres in Sy. Nos. 215 and 219 of Mayasandra is made in favour of Chinnappa, then the State cannot claim that the land belongs to it after the regrant and in that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner fell in error in assuming that the said land was Government land to set apart 10 guntas from out of the same for the special purpose of providing a public through fare for the benefit of residents of the village who possessed lands located on the hind side of petitioners' land, for their ingress and egress to and from their lands. The Deputy Commissioner as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal committed an error in law, occasioning grave injustice to the petitioners. 7. Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned Counsel for 4th respondent submits that during the lifetime of Chinnappa, he had extended a no objection for acquisition of 10 guntas of land to form a public road. If that is so, then it is open for the State Government to acquire the land, pay compensation and thereafter form a road, subject to objections of the petitioners over quantum of compensation, in the light of Chinnappa acquiescing in such an acquisition, if any, which is not disputed by learned Counsel for petitioner. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner are set aside and the appeal is allowed.