CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution of the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation passed in Sub. No. 17 at is meeting held on 28-7-1988. A true copy of the said resolution is produced at annexure-D to the petition. Subject No. 17 was the recommendation made by the standing Committee (2nd respondent) for grant of certain lands to one Samuel rubdi after directing the appropriate notification and report in regard to the recommendation made and after making a spot inspection, Resolution No. 2132 was passed in terms of Sec. 444 (3) of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the recommendation of the Standing Committee Finance dated 26-2-1988 may be sanctioned and accordingly the commissioner may be directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act to lease the land. That resolution has been unanimously passed. ( 2 ) MR. Ram Bhat contended that under Sec. 444 (B) the Corporation has no power to make the sanction under Sec. 444 ; appellate power is exercised by the Corporation Council against the findings recorded by any one of the Standing Committees before which an appeal has been lodged against the order of the Commissioner. Therefore, the resolution is liable to be struck down. ( 3 ) I do not think, there is any defect in the resolution as such, because wrong provision of law is stated. Under Sec. 176 of the Corporation Act, provision is made enabling the corporation to dispose of its moveable and immoveable assets subject to certain restrictions. The resolution does no more than direct the Commissioner to take steps in accordance with law which necessarily means that the Commissioner has to dispose of the land in question in one of the modes permissible under Sec. 176 of the Act and no other. ( 4 ) TILL that is done the petitioner cannot have any grievance unless he is able to point out at a later stage that the grant of lease for any other reason is opposed to law. This petition is premature. It is rejected. --- *** --- .