CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing the Counsel for petitioner as well as the contesting respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the tenant of 5 guntas of land in S. No. 30/5 as decided by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar kasba Village, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara kannada District. The grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tiibunal is questioned in this Court by the landlords who are respondents 1 to 5. In other words, no finality has been reached in regard to the rights acquired by the petitioner. ( 3 ) ON 14-12-1981 the Chief Officer of the Honnavar Town Municipal Council issued a building licence subject to certain conditions in favour of the petitioner the licence mentions the survey number as 530/5, building No- 725. The respondents 1 to 5 aggrieved by the said grant of licence moved the Deputy commissioner, Karwar, under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for suspension of the licence granted, as the same was contrary to law. The Deputy Commissioner- 8th respondent herein accepting the arguments advanced for the respondents 1 to 5 who were petitioners before him passed the impugned order, the operative portion of it is as follows :"order accordingly, the orders passed by the TMC, Honnavar are quashed. As required under TMC Act a detailed report will have to be sent to the Government urgently through the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, for confirming the action taken by me. The stay issued by this Court is made absolute. Dictated to the stenographer, typescript edited by me and pronounced in the open Court on this Thursday of 22-9-1983. 0/c Sd/- 17/9 deputy Commissioner, u K. Karwar. "aggrieved by that order, the present writ petition is presented in this Court inter alia contending that the Deputy commissioner had no jurisdiction to quash the licence granted and awail confirmation of his order by the Government as stated therein. The contention is liable to be upheld in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in numerous earlier cases. In two recent decisions of this Court particularly in w. P. No. 8014/1985 disposed of on 3- 6-1986 I have taken the view concurring with Rama Jois, J. , that sub-sec. The contention is liable to be upheld in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in numerous earlier cases. In two recent decisions of this Court particularly in w. P. No. 8014/1985 disposed of on 3- 6-1986 I have taken the view concurring with Rama Jois, J. , that sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 306 of the Act is not a remedy provided to aggrieved persons to move the Deputy Commissioner so that he may frequently interfere with the routine work of the Municipality. I have further stated that the section is intended to protect individual or public interests only when there is imminent danger or threat to such individual interest or public interest or peace and not otherwise. ( 4 ) IN a dispute in regard to title between the land owner and the tenant, the Deputy Commissioner cannot look for illegality or imminent danger to the interests of the petitioners before him when those petitioners are already before a Court of law which has ail the powers to give them relief. In that view of the matter, the 8th respondent- deputy Commissioner ought not to have proceeded to quash the licence granted for which he has no power at all. ( 5 ) HIS power is restricted to suspend the resolution and to make a report to the Government or the Divisional commissioner as the case may be who in turn alone have the power to deal with the action or resolution of the municipal Council. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction as well as far in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner assuming that he had jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the result the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed. But anything said in this writ petition will not in any way prejudice the rights of parties in dispute in regard to title between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5. ( 7 ) RULE will accordingly issued and be made absolute. No costs. Writ Petition is allowed. --- *** --- .