( 1 ) KENCHE Gowda, the petitioner, wants, to repair a dilapidated Gokatte situate in S. No. 49 of Anamanahalli village, Kanakapur taluk, by raising a Thope in about two acres of land for the use of men and cattle. He applied to the Deputy Commissioner for permission and the Deputy Commr thereupon consulted the local Panchayat and subordinate revenue officials. All of them had no objection for the petitioner being given permission for the philanthropic act. On 9th April, 1962, the Deputy Commr granted the required permission subject to the condition that the grantee should not have any personal interest in such Katte and Thope except collecting usufruct from the trees thereon. The said order was set aside by the Divisional commr in appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 5 before me. The Divisional Commr directed that the land being gomal land should be preserved as such and the respondents should be evicted therefrom. The petitioner took up the matter in an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Divisional Commr. Against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred CP. 156 of 1967 in this court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. While dismissing the petition, this Court observed that if the land in the unauthorised occupation of respondents 3 to 5 was the very land granted to the petitioner for raising thope and constructing Gokatte, the revenue authorities might seek to evict them, with an opportunity to put forward their contentions. Pursuant to the above observation, the Tahsildar issued notice calling upon respondents 3 to 5 why they should not be evicted from the land. After holding a formal enquiry, on 1. 2th Octr, 1972, he made an order of eviction. Against that order, the said respondents preferred revision petitions to the tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order dt. 30th March, 1973 allowed the petitions setting aside the order of eviction solely on the ground that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to evict the unauthorised occupants from the gomal land which has been vested in the panchayat, and it would be for the Panchayat to take appropriate action. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE primary question that falls for decision is, who should evict an unauthorised occupant from the land vested in the village Panchayat? is it the duty of the revenue authorities, or the function of the village Panchayat? ( 3 ) THERE appears to be no direct decision on the point. Mr. N. V. Ramachandra Rao, Counsel for respondent 3, relying on the decision of this Court in Nidige Group Village Panchayat v. MRAT, 1967 2 Myslj 249. urged that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over the matter, so long as the land remains vested in the Panchayat. ( 4 ) THE case in Nidige Group Village Panchayat (1) was pertaining to the grant of gomal land which was vested in the village Panchayat. The said gomal land before its appropriation and resumption was granted by the revenue authorities. The grant was challenged by the village Panchayat on the ground amongst others that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to make the grant. That contention was upheld by this Court. I do not think that the ratio of that decision can be of any assistance to the question debated before me, as I am not concerned with the grant of gomal land. ( 5 ) THERE is no provision under the Karnataka Village Panchayats and local Boards Act, 1959 conferring power on the village Panchayat to take eviction proceedings against the unauthorised occupant. S. 60 to which a reference was made by Counsel for respondent 3 also does not deal with the problem of such eviction. It is concerned with the removal of obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites and not in respect of gomal land. As far as I could see, S. 94 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 is the only provision providing for eviction of unauthorised occupants of land which has been set apart for any special purposes or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated. As far as I could see, S. 94 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 is the only provision providing for eviction of unauthorised occupants of land which has been set apart for any special purposes or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated. S. 94 (3) provides thus :" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kar Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 3 of 1962), the person unauthorisedly occupying any such land shall also be summarily evicted by the Deputy Commr and any crop including trees, raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any holding or other construction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Deputy Commr may deem reasonaable, be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal. "the land concerned in the instant case has "been" set apart for a special purpose like grazing. It is a land covered by the provisions of S. 94, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, the Deputy Commr of the district could evict the unauthorised occupants therefrom. It makes little difference whether such land is vested in the Panchayat or in any other local authority, so long as it has not been given by outright grant. The land in question was vested in the Panchayat by Notification issued u/s. 49 (1) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. It was not an absolute vesting. It was placed under the control of the Panchayat, and the Gavt could at any time resume that land by Notification issued under S. 49 (2 ). It is relevant to remember that in respect of all lands, the state Govt is the chief controlling authority under S. 3 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence it is proper that the power to evict has been preserved only to the revenue authorities constituted under. S. 94 (3) of the Land revenue Act. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained. ( 6 ) THIS takes me to the question whether it is now necessary to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, as it was urged for respondents. In my view, it is unnecessary. There remains nothing for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained. ( 6 ) THIS takes me to the question whether it is now necessary to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, as it was urged for respondents. In my view, it is unnecessary. There remains nothing for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. It has come to the conclusion that the Tahsildar has already given opportunities to the petitionerrs before they were ordered to be evicted. On the merits, respondents 3 to 5 have no case. ( 7 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute quashing the order of the tribunal without an order as to costs. --- *** --- .