The provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act shall be applicable to the area from the date of its inclusion into the larger urban area, and the Taluk Panchayat and the Zilla Panchayat having jurisdiction over the said area shall cease to have jurisdiction over such area.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 29-3-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Bangalore South Taluk. As a question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority after the establishment of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has arisen, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

Notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with at the request of the petitioner as no relief is sought against them.

2. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has set aside the khata entry made in favour of the petitioner in respect of site bearing No. 40 situated at Kammanahalli Village. Earlier, the khata was entered in the name of the petitioner by the Village Panchayat.

Aggrieved by the said entry, the 4th respondent herein, had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 28-11-2006 under the provisions of Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner herein had taken up a contention before the Appellate Authority (Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat) urging that in view of the notification dated 16-1-2007 issued by the State Government establishing the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which included 'Kammanahalli Village' in its jurisdiction, the Chief Executive Officer had' no power or jurisdiction over the subject-matter as the property in question fell within the jurisdictional limits of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. However, the Chief Executive Officer placing reliance on a circular dated 7-3-2007 issued by the State Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, proceeded to assume jurisdiction and decided the matter as per the impugned order.

3. Sri K V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on and after the establishment of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as per Annexure-C, notification, the Village 'Kammanahalli' mentioned at Sl. No. 48 in Schedule 'A' annexed to the notification ceased to be part of a Gram Panchayat and it became part of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. He submits that as a consequence of the issue of notification-Annexure-C as per the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KMC Ace) read with Section 500(a), (c), (g) and (h) of the Act for such a local area included in the larger urban area, the provisions of KMC Act shall apply from the date of its inclusion. He further submits that by virtue of Section 500(a) of the KMC Act, the Panchayat shall cease to have jurisdiction over such area and any order made under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act immediately before the said date in respect of the said local area shall continue to be in force and shall be deemed to have been made under the provisions of the KMC Act, until it is superseded or modified as per the provisions of the KMC Act. Placing reliance on clauses (g) and (h) of Section 500 of the KMC Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the proceedings pending before the Panchayat on the date of notification, Annexure-C came into force shall be deemed to be transferred to and be continued before the Corporation. Likewise, all appeals pending before any authority shall be disposed of as if the said local area had been included in the larger urban area. He thus contends that a reading of Section 500(g) and (h) along with Section 4(4) would make it clear that the local area namely the Gram Panchayat, having ceased to be in existence, neither the officers of the Gram Panchayat nor the officers of the Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat had any jurisdiction over the subject-matter situated in the local area. He submits that it is the authorities of the Corporation, as per the provisions of the KMC Act, who are entitled to deal with the subject-matter and the Executive Officer had no power or ju