M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a case of the petitioners complaining against the action of the divisional Commissioner under Subsection (3) of Section-4 of the Karnataka zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya panchayats Act 1983. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are the villagers of ouradundi village, Gokak Taluk of Belgaum District. They are aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 14-2-1986 made in exercise of his power under Section 4 (3) of the Act on an application preferred by the villagers of Lolsur, Chigadolli and adibetti who together with the villagers of Sindikurbet constituted a Mandal determined by the Deputy Commissioner. It was their case that they were closer to Arabhavi and they would prosper better if they would include in Arabhavi mandal. The Divisional Commissioner impressed by the arguments found that population-vise the Mandal would be better balanced, if villagers were attached to Arabhavi Mandal with Head- quarters at Arabhavi. Therefore, he modified the notifications constituting sindikurbet Mandal the Arabhavi mandal. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the present petitioners have challenged the order inter-alia contending that they have not been heard in the proceedings. ( 4 ) I do not think the petitioners have a right to be heard as the law was in February 1986 which enjoins that the Divisional Commissioner must give on opportunity to the parties concerned of being heard. I have in some other petitions taken the view that the Revenue authorities concerned, namely deputy Commissioner and the Divisional commissioner are competent authorities in these matters and none else Any liberal construction of giving opportunity to "parties concerned" including villagers of the villages affected by any order would be highly non-pragmatic having regard to the objects sought to be achieved by Section 4 of the Act. ( 5 ) SURPRISINGLY, the State Legislature has amended Section-4 considerably by amendment Act of 1986. By Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 1986 in subsection (3) the applicant or the Mandals concerned are required to be heard. Instead of simplifying the construction of Section-3, amendment appears to have made it a little more difficult for the Courts. Mandal is not a term defined under the main Act. The meaning of Mandal may be gathered by Section-4. Instead of simplifying the construction of Section-3, amendment appears to have made it a little more difficult for the Courts. Mandal is not a term defined under the main Act. The meaning of Mandal may be gathered by Section-4. It is only after each Mandal which is a geographical unit is formed, that a mandal Panchayat is to be constituted in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. It is only when the Mandal is capable of speaking through the Panchayat that hearing the Mandal through the Panchayat will arise and not otherwise. At the stage of formation of Mandals under sub-section-1, the question of hearing any villager of any Mandal or in respect of any other Mandal, does not arise. ( 6 ) PETITIONER is therefore, cannot be said to be aggrieved by the action of the Divisional Commissioner. Petition is therefore rejected. --- *** --- .