( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was posted in 'b' Group, by consent of the parties it was taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this petition has challenged the validity of the order dated 30th November 1978 passed by 'the Tahsildar, Kanakapura taluk, in Case NO. HOA. 795 of 1976-77 holding that the debt under the mortgage executed by Respondents 2 and 3 mortgaging, the land Sy. No. 575/5 of Morale village, Kanakapura taluk stood extinguished. The impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act ), ( 3 ) THE Tahsildar has not been empowered to pass an orther under any of the provisions of thq Act. It is (the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate authorised by the State Government in this behalf have been invested with the powers under the Act. Though the tahsildar of the taluk may also be the Taluka Executive Magistrate, but under the provisions of the Act, it is only such executive, Magistrate who is authorised by the State Government in this behalf alone has the jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Act. Though the Tahsildar in the instant case, might have been the Executive Magistrate authorised to exercise the powers under the Act, but the impugned order has not been passed by the Tahsudar as Executive Magistrate but it has been passed as, Tahsildar. The same officer may be invested with (the powers of more than one office but while exercising the powers performing the duties and discharging the functions of the particular office, he must no it in that capacity and not in any other capacity. In the instant case, the tahsildar has functioned as Tahsildar and not as Executive Magistrate, as such the impugned order is invalid and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. ( 4 ) EVEN on merits as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned olrder is not maintainable. In the instant case, the tahsildar has functioned as Tahsildar and not as Executive Magistrate, as such the impugned order is invalid and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. ( 4 ) EVEN on merits as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned olrder is not maintainable. The Tahsildar (1st respondent) has proceeded on a wrong basis that it was for the petitioner to produce the evidence regarding the income of the 2nd and 80 respondents Further, the finding that respondents 2 and 3 belong to a weaker section of the peopre is based on the Mahazar said to have been drawn by the residents of the village. The question as ito whether respondents 2 and 3 belong to a weaker section of the people is ito be proved by respondents 2 and 3 by adducing evidence and not by drawing a mahazair. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without holding an enquiry as required by law. Further the order cannot be considered to be a speaking order. The first respondent has failed to. notice that it was the applicant-respondents 2 and 3 to prove that they are, debtors as per the provisions of the Act, and as such, are entitled for the relief under the Act mat being so, the| order passed by the lst respondent, apart from being invalid as already pointed is also not tenable on merits; as such, it cannot at ali be sustained. ( 5 ) THERE appears to be some discrepancy regarding the land mortgaged by respondents 2 and. 3. According to the petitioner, the land mortgaged is Sy. No:. 573 and no,t Sy. No. 575/5 as has been referred, to in the impugned order. However, it is not necessary to say anything on this question as on remand, the Taluk Executive Magistrate will have to consider this aspect of the case also. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this writ petition is entitled to succeed, and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30. 11. However, it is not necessary to say anything on this question as on remand, the Taluk Executive Magistrate will have to consider this aspect of the case also. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this writ petition is entitled to succeed, and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30. 11. 1978 is hereby quashed and the matter now stands remitted to the Taluk Executive magrstrate Kanakapura, authorised by the State Government in this behalf with a direction to decide the application of respondents 2 and 3 afresh in accordance with law and after holding an enquiry and after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them and also in the light of the observations made in this order. No costs. --- *** --- .