Judgment : Learned Counsel Smt. Suman Baliga takes notice for respondent No.4. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking a declaration that the list of beneficiaries prepared at Annexure-B and forwarded by respondent 2-Member of the Legislative Assembly to respondent 1-Thalak Grama Panchayat, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, is illegal. A direction is also sought against respondent 1-Grama Panchayat to implement the list of beneficiaries as per Annexure-A duly prepared in the meeting of the Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all persons belonging to weaker sections without having any houses or sites of their own. It is claimed by the petitioners that most of them are either agricultural labourers or collies living in poverty. During 2002-03, a scheme called Navagrama scheme was introduced by the State Government for providing house sites to the siteless persons belonging to weaker sections. Under the said scheme, 88 persons having no sites of their own including 26 petitioners herein were consolidated for grant of house sites in accordance with the norms adopted in this regard by the respondent–Grama Panchayat. Petitioners have produced the copy of the said list at Annexure-A. It is claimed by the petitioners that this list was forwarded to the Ashraya Committee for further action. The allegations of the petitioners is that at the instance of respondent 2, in place of petitioners, some other members were inserted and a new list was prepared as per Annexure-B on 24.02.2004. The contention of the petitioners is that the list Annexure-B is illegally prepared though the Grama Sabha had no occasion to decide on the eligibility of those persons who are sought to be inserted in the place of petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that 26 petitioners who are found to be eligible in the meeting held by the Grama Sabha, wherein the Adhyaksha, Secretary and other office-bearers of the Grama Panchayat were present, have been illegally deleted from the list of beneficiaries at the instance of respondent 2. It is his contention that the second list prepared at Annexure-B not being approved by the Grama Sabha cannot be acted upon. 5. It is seen from Annexure-B that the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Challakere, and the MLA have signed the said list containing 93 beneficiaries. It is his contention that the second list prepared at Annexure-B not being approved by the Grama Sabha cannot be acted upon. 5. It is seen from Annexure-B that the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Challakere, and the MLA have signed the said list containing 93 beneficiaries. None of the petitioners names finds place in Annexure-B list, whereas their names are found in Annexure-A. It is further seen from Annexure-A list that Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and the Extension Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Challakere, have signed the resolution passed in the meeting held on 28.03.2003 at 2.00 p.m. in Chikkammanahalli village coming under the limits of Thalak Grama Panchayat. The said resolution contains the names of 88 persons including the 26 petitioners. It is resolved in the said meeting that under the 2002-03 Navagrama scheme, 88 persons mentioned thereunder have been selected unanimously as beneficiaries. However, the subsequent list of beneficiaries found at Annexure-B containing the names of 93 persons which does not include the names of the petitioners does not seem to be the result of any deliberation before the Grama Sabha or the Grama Panchayat. The allegations made by the petitioners in this regard alleging the role of respondent 2 in preparing Annexure-B are not denied. 6. As per the direction issued by this Court, the Secretary of the Thalak Grama Panchayat, has filed his affidavit dated 31.08.2006. In the said affidavit, he has stated that as per the enquiries made by him from the previous Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, who was incharge at the relevant point of time, the second list was prepared by the Ashraya Committee on their own. He has further stated in the affidavit that Annexure-A list was prepared and finalised in the meeting held on 28.03.2003 by taking into consideration the relevant facts such as economic backwardness and the income of the beneficiaries and the same was forwarded to the Ashraya Committee. Thus, it emerges from the materials on record and the affidavit filed by the Secretary, that there are two lists of beneficiaries. The second list bears the signatures of the Executive Officer and the MLA. It is not known whether the said list is prepared after ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioners in accordance with the norms. Thus, it emerges from the materials on record and the affidavit filed by the Secretary, that there are two lists of beneficiaries. The second list bears the signatures of the Executive Officer and the MLA. It is not known whether the said list is prepared after ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioners in accordance with the norms. It is also not forthcoming as to under what circumstances the names of the petitioners who are found to be eligible as per the first list are deleted. The respondents cannot give effect to the second list unless it is found, on examination that the names of the petitioners found in the first list were deleted after being found that they were not eligible or that a fresh list was prepared as per Annexure-B by following the prescribed procedure because the first list had been prepared without following such a procedure. In the absence of an enquiry into this matter, it is difficult for this Court to express any opinion on the validity of the lists Annexures-A and B. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find it just and necessary to direct the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga, to conduct an enquiry and find out the circumstances under which two lists of beneficiaries as per Annexures-A and B have been prepared. The Chief Executive Officer shall take action to implement the list of beneficiaries prepared in accordance with law after following due procedure, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Learned Counsel Smt. Suman Baliga appearing for respondent 4 is permitted to file her vakalat/memo of appearance within three weeks from today.