M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the daughters of one late Akbar Ali, who is said to have owned D. No. 2-6-22 and 2-6-22/1. On application made by the petitioners, the president, Town Municipal Council raichur, by his. order dated 11-8-1988 as at Annexures F and F 1 to the petition directed that the petitioners' name may be entered in the property register in place of their father late Akbar Ali. The said order of the Town Municipal Council, states that it has been so directed without considering the objections as the objections were received late. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, respondents 4 to 6 preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner challenging the legality and correctness of that order under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, inter-alia contending that the impugned orders as at Annexures and F1 were orders made without proper enquiry and notice to the affected parties and on account of the position held by the first of the petitioners in Writ Petition no. 1964 of 1989 as a Municipal Counciller at the relevant time and also on the false report submitted by the tax inspector that late Akbar Aii had no sons, the order had been passed and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) THE Divisional Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction has allowed the revision and by his order dated 20-12-1988 remanded the matter to the municipal council, Raichur, for proper r. 26 enquiry after giving an opportunity to all parties concerned of being heard and the application of the petitioners for change of khata disposed of in accordance with law and the observations made by him. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioners have in this common petition questioned the jurisdiction of the Divisional commissioner to entertain the revision, as the President of the Town Municipal council is not an officer subordinate to the Divisional Commissioner and therefore he has no jurisdiction to review the order. ( 5 ) THE contention advanced by the petitioners do not appear to be well founded. ( 6 ) SECTION 302 of the Municipalities act, deals with the revisional powers of the government as also of the Divisional commissioner. it has two sub-sections. ( 5 ) THE contention advanced by the petitioners do not appear to be well founded. ( 6 ) SECTION 302 of the Municipalities act, deals with the revisional powers of the government as also of the Divisional commissioner. it has two sub-sections. While the first sub-section provides for the revisional powers of the government as also the commissioner against the orders of subordinate officers, sub-section (2) clearly provides for revisional jurisdiction of the government or of the commissioner in respect of resolution passed by the town municipal councils or orders made by the town municipal councils. ( 7 ) FROM the documents produced, which are not in dispute, the town municipal council at its meeting held on 25-10- 1983 delegated its power under Section 113 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 to the President of the council. it is in exercise of that delegated power that the president of the town municipal council passed the order as at Annexures f and F1 directing the substitution of petitioners' name in the property register of the Raichur Town Municipality. Therefore, the order or resolution to change the khata is that of town municipal council through its delegate and as such was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner under subsecton (2) of Section 322 of the Act. Even otherwise the order appears to be just and proper and therefore does not call for interference by this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) AS such these writ petitions are rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .