P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.:

Since both the appeals arise out of a common order dated 18th June, 2008 made in W.P. No. 17199 of2005 connected with W.P. Nos. 22999 of 2005 and 545 of 2006, by consent both the appeals are heard and disposed of together.

2. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are appellants herein. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed as per the ranking in the writ petition.

3. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the allotment of sites to the petitioners who claim to be landless, by proceedings dated 5th September, 2005 under the following facts and circumstances of the case:

The 4th respondent-Grama Panchayat issued a public notice on 9th November, 1998 proposing to dispose of certain sites belonging to the Grama Panchayat, to which, the petitioners offered the highest bid. Based on the highest bid offered, the Taluk Panchayat by order dated 11th January, 1999 confirmed the bids, but the same came to suspended by the Zilla Panchayat by proceedings dated 16th March, 1999, as a result, the matter reached the Government and the Government by order dated 7th June, 2005 confirmed the order of suspension of Zilla Panchayat suspending the public notification issued proposing to sell the impugned property, the allotment and the consequential disposal of sites to the petitioners by impugned proceedings dated 5th September, 2005. Hence the writ petitions.

4. The petitioners contend that they having got confirmed the bid in their favour by resolution of the Taluk Panchayat dated 11th January. 1999, they are entitled for an opportunity of being heard before cancelling the same.

5. The respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitled for any notice or an opportunity of being heard as the very proposal to sell the property by the Grama Panchayat by issuance of public notice itself is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The issuance of notice to sell the property and the proposal to allot and the consequential resolution proposing to dispose of the property of Grama Panchayat are all nothing but nullity in the eye of law as there is a gross violation of Section 209 of the Act.

6. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the present writ appeals.

7. Both the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought to our notice the proceedings of the Taluk Panchayat dated 11th January, 1999 where the Taluk Panchayat by resolution No.4 approved the proposal for disposing of the impugned properties as per resolution dated 9th November, 1998, which reads as follows.-

4. Details of The meeting considered the proceedings of applications the Trinive Gram Panchayat Meeting

received from dated 10-9-1998, and approved the

Grama Panchayat resolution to distribute sites and also proceedings of the Ripponpete Grama Panchayat dated 25-11-1998, wherein the resolution to allot sites in alienated Survey No. 41 was also considered and approved and Secretaries of both the Gram Panchayats are required to again examine and take further action (Action: Secretaries, Grama Panchayat, Trinive and Ripponpete)

8. We have given our careful consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

9. It is an admitted fact that Grama Panchayat proposed to dispose of the property owned by the Grama Panchayat by issuing a public notice dated 9th November, 1998 and pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners offered their sale consideration and the same was accepted by resolution dated 11th January, 1999 by the Taluk Panchayat. But the Zilla Panchayat by order dated 16th March, 1999 suspended the proposal for disposal of immovable property in favour of the petitioners by the Gra