ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of the proceedings No HOA/CR/12/2015-16 pending on the file of the respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed Appeal No. 12/2015 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk (appeal memorandum is a: Annexure-G) aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order, dated 30-6-2015 (Annexure-B). 2. Sri G. Papi Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned appeal proceedings are without the authority of law and without-jurisdiction. He submits that the Tahsildar has passed the order in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the said Act for short). He submits that the power granted to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3 of the said Act are delegated to the Tahsildar. When the Tahsildar has thus exercised the power under Section 3(1) of the said Act, it can only be appealed before the District Court. He read out Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the said Act. They are extracted herein below: "3. Powers of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeals.-(1) If any question arises,- (a) whether any land was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State; or (b) whether any person is a holder of a village office; or (c) whether any person is an authorised holder; or (d) whether any person is an unauthorised holder the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the party affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner decide the question. (2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may file an appeal to the District Judge of the District within ninety days of such decision and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final. The provisions of Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall be applicable to such appeal." 3. He submits that the other two parties aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order have already filed M.A. No. 12/2015 before the designated District Judge. He submits that the petitioners' objections to the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. He submits that the other two parties aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order have already filed M.A. No. 12/2015 before the designated District Judge. He submits that the petitioners' objections to the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. He also relies on this Court's decision in the case of Malleshappa Yeshvantahappa Patil v. Kallappa Vithoba Patil and others reported in 1970 SCC Online Kar. 97 (DB) : 1970 (2) MLJ 350 (DB)Paragraph 37 of the said decision read out by him is extracted herein below : "37. When the Act itself expressly provides for an appeal to the District Judge from an order of the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 3, we think the Act bars, by necessary implication, any appeal from such order, to any other authority under any other Act. Hence no appeal lies, in our opinion, from the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. In the result, we allow W.P. No. 483 of 1969, set aside the judgment of the District Judge dated 13-1-1969 and direct him to take back the appeal on this file and to dispose of the same according to law. We dismiss W.P. No. 5049 of 1969." 5. Dr. E.R. Diwakar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that it is not in dispute that the Tahsildar has acted as a delegate of the power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner by Section 3(1) of the said Act and that therefore the Deputy Commissioner cannot sit in judgment over the orders passed by the Tahsildar. He submits that this Court, in its order, dated 11.6.2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 30318 and 30319 of 2009 has this to say in paragraph 13 of its decision: "13. Insofar as the issue regarding Deputy Commissioner should have exercised jurisdiction is concerned, same would not detain this Court for too long to negative said contention inasmuch as, notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act dated 29-8-1979 also came to be considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G. Shivamma v. K.L. Somashekar and Others, 2009(5) Kar. L.J. 677 : 2010 (1) KCCR 56 , where under it is held that notification issued by the appropriate Government vesting the jurisdiction in Tahsildar to perform the duties of Deputy Commissioner envisaged under the Act would squarely cover the said contention and it would put to rest the contention raised by Sri Varaprasad, and as such, said contention is rejected." 6. Sri I. Gopal Krishna, the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 submits that the appeal filed by the respondents 3 to 5 aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar is maintainable before the Special Deputy Commissioner. He relies on the Short Notes of Recent Decisions No. 172 in the case of Neelavva v. Mallappa N. Karikatti reported in ILR 1979 Kar. 2403 to advance his submission that the question falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under Section 3 of the said Act. 7. He also relies on-this Court's decision in the case of M. Shivappa v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 1979(2) Kar. L.J. 521 . The head note portion read out by him is as follows: "Section 7 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the 1978 Act and as it stands by virtue of the amendment made by the 1978 Act has exclusively conferred the power of evicting persons in unauthorised occupation of lands on the Deputy Commissioner. The Act or any other Act has not empowered the delegation of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to any other officer. Hence, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction or power to issue eviction notices." 8. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The issues raised in these petitions are no more res Integra. They are covered by this Court's decision in the case of Malleshappa (supra), wherein it is held that in view of the express provision of appeal to the District Judge under Section 3(2) of the said Act, it bars appeal to any other authority. It was held that no appeal lies from the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. The only difference between the reported case and this case is that in the reported case the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner and in the instant case, the order is passed by the Tahsildar. It was held that no appeal lies from the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. The only difference between the reported case and this case is that in the reported case the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner and in the instant case, the order is passed by the Tahsildar. In both the cases, the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar have passed the order under Section 3(1) of the said Act in view of the delegation of power in their favour. 9. Following the order passed in Malleshappa's case (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the appeal proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner are without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. They are therefore liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed, heedless to observe that quashing of the impugned appeal proceedings would not come in the way of the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 preferring the appeal before the designated District Judge. It shall also be open to them to seek the exclusion of time bona fide spent on the appeal proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner, invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.