RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a residential building having purchased the same in the year 1984. After the purchase, the petitioner effected certain improvements to the building. A special notice under Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, (the act) was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 16-5-1986 stating that the rental value has been revised from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 11,450/- with effect from 1-4-1986. To the said notice objections were also called for in writing to be filed before the commissioner of the corporation. Objections were accordingly filed by the petitioner on 25-6-1986. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 16-7-1986 by the deputy revenue officer (north) stating that the objections filed by the petitioner to the proposed enhancement of rental value, would be heard by the deputy revenue officer on 23-7-1986 and called upon the petitioner to be present at the hearing. To this, the petitioner filed objections as per Annexure-D stating that the deputy revenue officer has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the revision of assessment. It was also stated in the objections that only the commissioner was competent to hear and decide the enhancement and he cannot delegate his power to any other officer under the taxation rules. This was followed by an intimation dated 12-8-1986, Annexure-E that the enhanced annual value of Rs. 11,450/- had been considered reasonable and confirmed by the appeal officer. The petitioner has challenged this intimation and the notice issued as per annexure-a. The short question that is required to be decided in this writ petition is, whether the commissioner can delegate his powers of adjudication under rules 11 and 17 (2) of the taxation rules? Under the scheme of the taxation rules procedure is laid down for assessment of property. In part-ii wherever general revision of books of assessment is required to be done, a notice is to be given by the commissioner under rule-7. Objections are also called for to the proposed revision under Rule 8 and after considering the objections the commissioner is required to adjudicate and make an order of assessment whether it is done for the first time or on revision. In a batch of cases which came up before this court in W. P. nos. Objections are also called for to the proposed revision under Rule 8 and after considering the objections the commissioner is required to adjudicate and make an order of assessment whether it is done for the first time or on revision. In a batch of cases which came up before this court in W. P. nos. 880 of 1986 and connected cases reported in 1986 (2) blj 240 - the citizens forum and others v state of Karnataka and another, this court had occasion to deal with the delegation of this quasi-judicial power of revision vested in the commissioner under the municipal Corporation Act. This court has held (mpcj) that it is the commissioner who is required to perform the quasi-judicial functions under Rule 11 of the taxation rules and that this power cannot be delegated to anybody else. The scheme of the rules also makes it clear that this power is vested only in the commissioner and no other officer. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the notice issued by the deputy revenue officer posting the case for hearing before him, is without jurisdiction, has to be accepted. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the intimation dated 12-8-1986, Annexure-E determining the revised annual value is quashed. There is no need to quash Annexure-A which is a special notice issued under Section 147 read with rules 8 and 9 of the taxation rules. The petitioner has already filed his objections (Annexure-B) and same shall be considered by the commissioner in accordance with law. The petitioner may be permitted to file additional objections, if any, within six weeks from this day and the commissioner shall fix a date of hearing thereafter. --- *** --- .