Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–In all these petitions point of law and facts, except facts in Writ Petitions No. 4303/97 and 4837/97, are analogous, Therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common order. (2). The petitioners were holding the posts of Sarpanch, Panch and Member, in different Panchayat Samities. They have been removed from their posts by the Competent Authority on their having incurred disqualifications under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as they are alleged to have more than two children. The orders were passed by the Competent Authority after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. After the notice was received by the petitioners u/Section 39(2) of the Act, they denied the fact of having more than two children on the relevant date i.e. 27.11.1995. Disqualification declared and consequent thereof cessation of their membership from the panchayati raj institution, was the result of the orders passed u/Sec. 39(2) of the Act by the Competent Authority. (3). Submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that when the petitioners have denied the fact of having more than two children on the relevant date, the Competent Authority did not have any jurisdiction to pass any order in regard to the disqualification having been incurred by the petitioners to hold the office and consequent thereof on order could have been passed for their removal from respe- ctive office. (4). The question came before this court previously regarding interpretation of Section 39 and 40 of the Act in the case of Smt. Bhanwari Devi vs. The State of Rajasthan (1), wherein it was held that when the dispute is raised as to the number of children, it is the civil court which has jurisdiction to decide the issue under Sec- tion 40 of the Act and not the Competent Authority under Section 39 of the Act. The Competent Authority in such a situation, where the fact of having more than two children is denied, has no jurisdiction to determine the issue. The decision of Smt. Bhanwari Devi (supra) has been upheld by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Mukesh Kumar Ajmera vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2), and Om Pra- kash Tanwar & others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (3),. The decision of Smt. Bhanwari Devi (supra) has been upheld by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Mukesh Kumar Ajmera vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2), and Om Pra- kash Tanwar & others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (3),. As the Competent Authority does not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter, the resultant disqualification to hold the office by petitioners in the panchayati raj institution was illegal and the orders of their removal from the office are set aside. (5). In Writ Petition No. 4304/97 and 4837/97, the petitioners have approached this court after the notice under Section 39(2) of the Act was received by them alleging that they have incurred disqualification to hold the office of panchayati raj institution as they are having more than two children after the relevant date. The petitioners have denied the fact of having more than two children offer the relevant date. The petitioners have challenged the competence of the Competent Authority under Section 39(2) of the Act to proceed with the case when there was denial of the fact by the petitioners of having more than two children. (6). For the reasons stated above, the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question, where the fact of having more than two children was denied by the petitioners and it is for the civil court to determine the question under Section 40 of the Act. The proceedings before the Competent Authority in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioners, are quashed. (7). It is made clear that it shall be open for the parties to approach the civil court for adjudication of the question under Section 40 of the Act. No order as to costs.