S.R. Bannurmath, J.
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 as 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. Inspite 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 of 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 Sections 227 and 225, Clause (vii) of the Act. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon Annexure-F, Annexure-K and Annexure-N.
4. It is to be noted that neither Annexure-F nor Annexure-K show that the lands belong to Taluk Development Board. No doubt there is a reference to property belonging to Mulbagal Taluk Development Board but it is in the context of showing the situation of Survey No. 55. This is where from the wordings used 'anticipating the sanction of the Government the site measuring 22 x 14 meters situated in Survey No. 55 adjoining the residential property belonging to Mulbagal Taluk Development Board'. Hence it cannot be read that Survey No. 55 also belongs to the Mulbagal Taluk Development Board. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived. Similarly the reliance placed on the alleged endorsement, again it is to be noted that this has been collusively obtained from the Zilla Panchayat, Kolar, It is clear from the said endorsement that though the appellant wanted certified copy with regard to the property bearing Survey No. 54, the endorsement is given in respect of Survey No. 55 stating that it belongs to Taluk Panchayat. This is clear collusion both at Taluk level and Zilla Panchayat level showing that the members are helping the appellant. Lastly, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Government cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Section 237(5) as it is only in respect of resolutions likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, we find that again this is a misreading of the section. Section 237(5) entitles the Government to apprehend the effect of the resolutions is either unjust, unlawful or improper or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public. In our view, after considering the entire documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant himself, it is cleat that all the prefixes noted namely unjust, unlawful improper are applicable to the present case. It is easily demonstrable from the fact that if the resolutions of 1989 the price was fixed at Rs. 5,075.84 and immediately when the Government sought to take action of cancelling the resolution, the price in no time came to be increased at Rs. 1,00,000/- and even though the appellant claims equity on the ground of construction of a building by a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000/-, there is no material to show that even he has paid the remaining balance of Rs. 75,000/-. Thus, in view of clear mandate of Section 222 wherein previous sanction of the Government is required to be obtained by the Zilla Panchayat before disposing of its property and in violation of the same as was noticed in the earlier action, again, the Zilla Panchayat was bent upon giving land to the appellant at throw away price. As such, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that 'the way the members of the Zilla Panchayat have acted inspite of the directions of the Government clearly shows the mala fides on the part of the said members. A public property has been entrusted to them in trust. Their actions clearly indicate breach of trust and therefore the Government was fully justified in passing the impugned order. Petitioner even without paying the full consideration contends that as he was put in possession, he has put up construction. That only shows that he has no respect for the law and he has taken the law to his own hands' are justifiable observations. Hence agreeing with the observations of the learned Single Judge, we find that the entire efforts of the appellant and the Zilla Panchayat was to grab the land of the Zilla Panchayat at throw away price without following the due process as is indicated under Section 222 of the Act. Hence, we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).