T R SHANKARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated 15-7-2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant as well us the order dated 16-10-2006 dismissing the review petition, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) THE appellant who is admittedly a former Zilla Panchayat member had got the land survey No. 55 of Mulbagal Taluk measuring 25 x 14 meters granted by the Kolar zilla Panchayat on 7-7-1989 for a consideration of Rs. 5. 075. 84 under Section 222 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). As previous sanction of the Government for such transaction is necessary, the matter was forwarded to the Government and the Government did not approve the resolution. In spite of the same. the Kolar Zilla Panchayat passed another resolution dated 15-10-1997 reiterating the resolution dated 7-7-1989 and the grant in favour of the appellant was made. On coming to know of this order, the Government issued a show cause notice to the Kolar Zilla Panchayat as to show cause why the grant of the land to the appellant should not be cancelled. After receipt of the show cause notice, the Zilla panchayat passed one more resolution refixing the price of the land from Rs. 5,075. 84 to rs. 1,00,000/ -. However, as the Government felt that the whole transaction is illegal, unjust and has been made by the Zilla Panchayat to help its former member, by the impugned order dated 28-5-2001, the Government cancelled all the resolutions passed by the Zilla panchayat in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court in the impugned writ petition No. 26249/2001. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge noting the repeated attempts of the Zilla Panchayat to give the land belonging to it to the appellant a former Zilla panchayat member practically at throw away price not only come upon heavily on the illegal action of the Zilla Panchayat but also dismissed the writ petition with costs at Rs. 10,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) SRI. A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant taking us through the documentary evidence produced by him in the writ petition vehemently contended that as the land belonged to the Mulbagal Taluk development Board, it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Government under Section 227, 225 clause 7 of the Act. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon Annex-ure-F, Annexure-K and Annexure-N.