( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 29-3-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-Executive officer, Taluka Panchayat, Bangalore south Taluk. As a question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority after the establishment of the Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike has arisen, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Notice to respondents-2 and 3 is dispensed with at the request of the petitioner as no relief is sought against them. ( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has set aside the Khata entry made in favour of the petitioner in respect of site bearing no. 40 situated at Kammanahalli village. Earlier, the Khata was entered in the name of the petitioner by the Village Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said entry, the 4th respondent herein, had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 28-11-2006 under the provisions of Section 269 (1) of the Karnataka panchayath Raj Act, 1993. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner herein had taken up a contention before the Appellate authority (Chief Executive Officer, Taluka panchayat) urging that in view of the Notification dated 16-1-2007 issued by the State government establishing the Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike which included 'kammanahalli VILLAGE' in its jurisdiction, the Chief Executive Officer had no power or jurisdiction over the subject-matter as the property in question fell within the jurisdictional limits of the Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike. However, the Chief Executive officer placing reliance on a circular dated 7-3-2007 issued by the State Government, department of Rural Development and panchayat Raj, proceeded to assume jurisdiction and decided the matter as per the impugned order. ( 3 ) SRI K. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on and after the establishment of the Bruhath bangalore Mahanagara Palike as per Annexure-C notification, the village 'kammanahalli' mentioned at SI. No. 48 in schedule 'a' annexed to the Notification ceased to be part of a Gram Panchayath and it became part of the Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike. No. 48 in schedule 'a' annexed to the Notification ceased to be part of a Gram Panchayath and it became part of the Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike. He submits that as a consequence of the issue of Notification- Annexure 'c' as per the provisions of Section 4 (4)of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the KMC Act) r/w section 500 (a) (c) (g) and' (h) of the Act for such a local area included in the Larger Urban Area, the provisions of KMC Act shall apply from the date of its inclusion. He further submits that by virtue of Section 500 (a)of the KMC Act, the Panchayat shall cease to have jurisdiction over such area and any order made under the provisions of the karnataka Panchayat Raj Act immediately before the said date in respect of the said local area shall continue to be in force and shall be deemed to have been made under the provisions of the KMC act, until it is superceded or modified as per the provisions of the KMC act. Placing reliance on sub-sections (g) and (h) of Section 500 of the KMC Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the proceedings pending before the Panchayat on the date Notification Annexure 'c' came into force shall be deemed to be transferred to and be continued before the Corporation. Likewise, all appeals pending before any authority shall be disposed of as if the said local area had been included in the Larger Urban area. He thus contends that a reading 500 (g)and (h) along with Section 4 (4) would make it clear that the local area namely the Gram panchayat, having ceased to be in existence, neither the Officers of the Gram Panchayat nor the Officers of the Taluka Panchayat or zilla Panchayat had any jurisdiction over the subject-matter situated in the local area. He submits that it is the authorities of the Corporation, as per the provisions of the KMC Act, who are entitled to deal with the subject-matter and the executive officer had no power or jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He submits that it is the authorities of the Corporation, as per the provisions of the KMC Act, who are entitled to deal with the subject-matter and the executive officer had no power or jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents contends that Section 500 (h) of the kmc Act would enable the authorities under the Panchayat Raj Act to entertain the appeal filed prior to issue of Annexure-C Notification and to consider and dispose of the appeal and therefore the Executive Officer had rightly exercised his power. ( 5 ) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, I am in agreement with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 4 (4) of the KMC Act r/w Section 500 (g) and (h) would make it clear that on and from the date of issue of the Notification-Annexure 'c', the provisions of the kmc Act shall be applicable to the said area from the date of its inclusion into the Larger urban Area. The Taluka Panchayat and the zilla Panchayat having jurisdiction over the said area shall cease to have jurisdiction over such area as per Section 500 (a) KMC Act. In order to effectuate the intention expressed under Section 500 (a) of the KMC Act, the provisions under sub-clauses (g) and (h) are made. While sub-clause (g) deals with the transfer of pending proceedings before the panchayat to the Corporation, sub-clause (h)provides for consideration of all appeals filed and were pending as on the date of the inclusion of the panchayat into the Larger Urban area. While sub-clause (g) deals with the transfer of pending proceedings before the panchayat to the Corporation, sub-clause (h)provides for consideration of all appeals filed and were pending as on the date of the inclusion of the panchayat into the Larger Urban area. It reads thus: s. 500 (h)- all appeals pending before any authority shall, so far as may be practicable, be disposed of as if the said local area had been included in the city when they were filed; the meaning and purport of this provision is that an Authority who is competent to hear the appeals under the provisions of the KMC act shall only hear such appeals filed prior to the establishment of Bruhath Bangalore mahanagara Palike as far as practical expression as if the said local area had been included in the Larger Urban Area, when they (appeals)were filed would mean that if the present panchayat area of 'kammanahalli' had been included in the Larger Urban Area prior to the filing of the appeal, the appellant-respondent No. 4 herein would have filed an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority under the provisions of the KMC Act and the concerned authority would have considered the appeal. Therefore, this deeming provision makes it clear that though the establishment of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is after the filing of the appeals, they shall be disposed of treating them as Appeals filed before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara palike, The interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on sub-clause (h) that the very same authorities under the Provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act shall be entitled to dispose of the appeals runs counter to the intention expressed under sub-clause (h)of Section 500 of the KMC Act. When there is no ambiguity in the provisions of Section 500 (h), it is not possible to adopt such an interpretation. ( 6 ) THE circular instructions relied upon by the 2nd respondent for assuming the jurisdiction have nothing to do with the exercise of appellate powers. Learned Government pleader also does not dispute this position. ( 7 ) IN the result and for the forgoing reasons, it is to be held that the 2nd respondent executive Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 29-3-2007 (Annexure-G)as, by then, the Notification Annexure-C had already been issued and 'kammanahalli Village had been included in the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. ( 7 ) IN the result and for the forgoing reasons, it is to be held that the 2nd respondent executive Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 29-3-2007 (Annexure-G)as, by then, the Notification Annexure-C had already been issued and 'kammanahalli Village had been included in the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to succeed and hence I pass the following : order a) The writ petition is allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; c) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to make necessary representation to have his appeal considered by the competent authority of the Corporation under Section 500 (g) of the KMC Act and the rules and regulations issued in this regard, as expeditiously as possible. If such representation is made, the Administrator of bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, shall consider the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above and take appropriate action. The contentions urged on the merits of the matter are kept open. Petition allowed.