V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this writ petition has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order at annexure-a, dated 18-1-2001 passed in r. a. No. 145 of 2000-01 by the assistant commissioner, kolar sub-division, kolar and further to direct the assistant commissioner to consider the request for grant of interim order and continue the interim order granted earlier in r. a. No. 145 of 2000-01 pending disposal of the appeal urging various facts and legal contentions. ( 2 ) THIS court, vide its order dated 15-3-2001 permitted respondents 3 to 15 who are the residents of kempanahalli village to come on record to justify the impugned order. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in sy. ( 2 ) THIS court, vide its order dated 15-3-2001 permitted respondents 3 to 15 who are the residents of kempanahalli village to come on record to justify the impugned order. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in sy. No. 34 of kempanahalli village, tekal hobli, malur taluk as an absolute owner and there is a pathway running in the said land which is being used by the public as well as the petitioner as shown in the village map at annexure-b; since, 2nd respondent attempted to form the road in the middle of the land contrary to the village map he filed o. s. No. 143 of 2000 on the file of the learned civil judge (junior division), malur, and obtained an interim order of temporary injunction, which was subsequently vacated on the basis of the memo as per Annexure-C filed by the respondents to the effect that they are not forming the road in the land in dispute; in the meanwhile, the tahsildar, 2nd respondent issued an eviction order dated 13-11-2000 as per Annexure-D on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon the existing cart-track without giving any notice and conducting an enquiry; against that Order, he filed r. a. No. 145 of 2000-01 before the assistant commissioner, kolar sub-division, kolar, who had initially granted the interim order of stay of the operation of the order of the tahsildar till 7-12-2000 and the same was extended till 11-1-2001; thereafter the case was adjourned to 18-1-2001 on that day, the assistant commissioner without any reason refused to continue the interim order and vacated the interim order as per annexure-a; thereafter the matter is being adjourned from time to time; that the 2nd respondent taking advantage of the said Order, has started formation of the road in the middle of the land in dispute and as such petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking for the reliefs as stated supra. ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed fact that there are original suit nos, 168 and 143 of 2000 pending between the parties in respect of the very same property on the file of the learned additional civil judge (junior division), malur, wherein the learned trial judge has passed an interim order on la. ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed fact that there are original suit nos, 168 and 143 of 2000 pending between the parties in respect of the very same property on the file of the learned additional civil judge (junior division), malur, wherein the learned trial judge has passed an interim order on la. No. 3 filed under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in o. s. No. 168 of 2000 filed by respondents 3 and 4 restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with statutory authority from discharging their duty regarding removing obstructions for using the cart-track pathway till the disposal of the suits. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in m. a. . no. 64 of 2000 before the learned civil judge (senior division), kolar. In the said miscellaneous appeal, the submission of the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 has been recorded wherein it is stated that they would not disturb the petitioner's possession of the land except using the pathway measuring 8 ft. 3 inches passing through the survey number as per the survey manual and the said appeal is still pending consideration before the civil judge (senior division ). Further, as, could be seen from the order passed by the learned trial judge on la. No. Ii filed in o. s. No. 168 of 2000, there is a reference to the commissioner's report in respect of the property in question and it is observed that the court commissioner has stated that the level of the passage is uneven and that with reference to the photographs, the sketch and the commissioner's report, produced in the said original suit proceedings the learned judge has made an observation that it cannot be said that the vehicles or carts can pass through without levelling the passage, but, he has not given permission to anybody to level the passage for affording free passage to carts and vehicles. Further, the petitioner's counsel has stated before the trial court that he has no objection for the public using the said pathway, but he has got objections for taking the vehicle or carts upon the cart road. As such the protection sought for respondents 3 and 4 in la. No. Ii was not considered and granted in their favour. Further, the petitioner's counsel has stated before the trial court that he has no objection for the public using the said pathway, but he has got objections for taking the vehicle or carts upon the cart road. As such the protection sought for respondents 3 and 4 in la. No. Ii was not considered and granted in their favour. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in kadappa appayya v tahsildar, gokak and others, in support of the proposition that either the tahsildar or the taluka magistrate has no jurisdiction or power to pass the order under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 and under the said provision, in express terms, the power is conferred only on the deputy commissioner or a survey officer not lower in rank than a deputy commissioner and contended that the impugned notice as per Annexure-D issued by the tahsildar calling upon him to vacate the encroached portion of the cart-track is without authority of law. This contention of the petitioner's counsel is untenable in law for the reason that the said notice has been issued by the tahsildar on the basis of the report submitted by the deputy tahsildar, tekal nada kacheri, under Section 39 of the KLR Act, 1964 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has encroached upon the cart road as shown in the village map and as such he was called upon to vacate the encroached portion of the cart road and also for the reason that the 2nd respondent has not initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the act 1964. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the undisputed facts that the petitioner and respondents 2 to 18 have admitted that there is a cart road measuring 8 ft. 3 inches upon which the petitioner has no legal right either to be in occupation or continue to be in an unauthorised occupation, or causing obstruction to use of cart-track by the villagers if he has encroached upon the same as stated in the notice at Annexure-D he had to vacate the same. The petitioner has categorically stated before the trial judge while considering la. The petitioner has categorically stated before the trial judge while considering la. No. Ii in the original suit proceedings referred to supra that he has no objection for the villagers using the said passage, but he has objection for levelling the said road for the free passage to the carts and the vehicles of the public and villagers referred to supra and the grievance of the petitioner that the deputy commissioner or a survey officer not lower in rank than the deputy commissioner can exercise the power under sub-section (2) of Section 67 for removal of the alleged obstruction of the use of the cart-track. In the interest of the public and the villagers and also to see that the villagers shall not waste their time in enforcing their statutory rights under the Provisions of the Karnataka land revenue act in respect of the cart-track as admitted by the parties either before the first respondent or before the other revenue authorities, either deputy commissioner of kolar district or the deputy director of survey settlement and land records department, kolar district, though they are not made as parties in these proceedings, it would be proper and appropriate for this court to direct the deputy director of land records and survey settlement department to conduct the spot inspection of the property in question and to survey the land and fix the boundaries and further allow the villagers or the taluka panchayath to level the cart road for their use. ( 7 ) IN view of the above said observations and directions, the petitioner need not pursue the appeal filed against the order at Annexure-D before the first respondent. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the deputy director of survey settlement and land records department, Bangalore, who has got jurisdiction of kolar district to comply with the directions referred to supra within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and submit the report before this court, the registry of this court is directed to send copy of this order to the deputy director of land records of survey, settlement and records for compliance of this order. --- *** --- .