Judgment :- N.V. Ramana, ACJ. By this public interest litigation, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the Ex-Chairman of the third respondent municipal council has unauthorizedly alienated Ac.25.09 cents of municipal land in Sy.Nos.737-B, 738-B, 772-A, 1293 and 1294 in Sajjaldinne, Tadipatri Revenue Division, Anantapur District, in favour of respondents 4 and 5 vide agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney, being registered as Document No.8496/10 dated 28.09.2010. 2. The petitioner also alleged that the said alienation is an attempt on the part of the Ex-Chairman to knock away the said land for himself through benamis, respondent No.4, who is only a daily wage earner with an annual income of Rs.12,000/- and respondent No.5, who is a coolie/porter/hand cart puller with annual income of Rs.20,000/-, as per the civil supplies card details of respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner also sought the relief that the said alienation, being against the municipality and public interest, independent enquiry into the said act of alienation be initiated and to prosecute the persons responsible. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under: (a) It is not in dispute that one Smt. K. Buchamma W/o. K. Subbarayudu, gifted an extent of Ac.7.95 cents in Sy.Nos.737-B and 738-B of the aforesaid land in favour of the second respondent municipality vide registered gift deed No.5931/06 dated 13.12.2006. Similarly, six other individuals also gifted various extents, as mentioned below, under registered gift deed No.5932/06 dated 13.12.2006 in favour of the second respondent municipality. The land covered by the later gift deed is Ac.1.20 cents in SY.No.772-A; Ac.9.97 cents in Sy.No.1293; Ac.18.88 cents in Sy.No.1298; Ac.8.95 cents in Sy.No.1294 and Ac.1.79 cents in Sy.Nos.1297-B and 1297-D. Thus, the second respondent municipality was donated total extent of Ac.48.74 cents, as aforesaid, by various individuals and from the date of registered gift deeds, the second respondent municipality owned and is in possession of the said land. (b) While so, the Ex-Chairman, Ediga Chinna Venkataramana, in his capacity as Chairman, entrusted the work of clearing of bushes on the aforesaid land to respondents 4 and 5 for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and it is alleged that the said respondents 4 and 5 have cleared the bushes and shrubs by using heavy machinery and in consideration thereof, in lieu of payment of Rs.3,50,000/-, was agreed to be paid to them, the Ex-Chairman is said to have executed registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney dated 28.09.2010 in their favour alienating Ac.25.09 cents from out of the aforesaid land empowering respondents 4 and 5 to utilize the said land for any purpose including alienation in favour of any person without any time limit. (c) The aforesaid transaction was reported in local press pointing out that respondents 4 and 5, who were alleged beneficiaries, have neither any means nor capacity to use heavy machinery to clear the bushes from the aforesaid land, as alleged and the said persons are mere henchmen of the then Chairman, so that through the said henchmen, the land could be sold in future. Petitioner claims that, therefore, he has obtained the necessary document and verified the transaction and brought it to the notice of this Court by this public interest litigation. 4. The Municipal Commissioner, who is arrayed as the second respondent, filed a counter affidavit accepting the transactions, as above, but claimed that the municipality was not aware of the said transactions, as the said land does not relate to the second respondent municipality, as per the records of the municipality. The Commissioner also denied that any work of clearing bushes and shrubs was entrusted to respondents 4 and 5 and it was stated that the Ex-Chairman had cancelled the said registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney and handed over the gifted land to the municipality. It was further alleged that the said Ex-Chairman further executed a registered gift deed, being Document No.5687/12 dated 04.10.2012 in favour of the municipality and handed over the possession of the land as well to the municipality. 5. During the hearing of this public interest litigation, we were not satisfied with the said counter affidavit. Hence, on 11.03.2013, we raised certain queries and directed the Commissioner to appear before us with relevant record including the encumbrance certificate with regard to the said land. 5. During the hearing of this public interest litigation, we were not satisfied with the said counter affidavit. Hence, on 11.03.2013, we raised certain queries and directed the Commissioner to appear before us with relevant record including the encumbrance certificate with regard to the said land. We have, thereafter, heard the matter on 14.03.2013. 6. Respondents 4 and 5 also have filed counter affidavit reiterating that the agreement of sale cum general power of attorney is cancelled on 23.02.2012 vide document No.877/12 and the land is handed over to the Municipal Commissioner by the Ex-Chairman and that respondents 4 and 5 are not interested in the above land and have no objection, whatsoever, in the land being handed over to the municipality. It was also stated that since the GPA executed by the Ex-Chairman is cancelled, respondents 4 and 5 have no right, whatsoever, over the land and that respondents 4 and 5 have no interest in the subject matter, as they have no objection for the second respondent using the said land for any purpose. 7. We have also perused the documents produced by the Municipal Commissioner, which show that the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Elec.1) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide memo dated 11.05.2012 directed the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration to file a suit in a competent civil Court for cancellation of the deed and initiate criminal action against the Chairperson of Tadipatri Municipality under Sections 405 and 409 Indian Penal Code. This was also followed by similar directive from Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration vide letter Roc.No.12026/2012-Ele-2 dated 02.08.2012 directing the Municipal Commissioner, Tadipatri Municipality to take necessary action in a civil Court for cancellation of the deed executed by the Ex-Chairman and also initiate appropriate proceedings under Sections 405 and 409 of the IPC against ex-chairman and respondents 4 and 5 and submit compliance report. Curiously, however, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 22.08.2012 to the Ex-Chairman as to why criminal action should not be initiated under Sections 405 and 409 IPC and thereafter, the matter remained without initiating any action. 8. Curiously, however, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 22.08.2012 to the Ex-Chairman as to why criminal action should not be initiated under Sections 405 and 409 IPC and thereafter, the matter remained without initiating any action. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after noting the salient features of the matter, as above, we find that just before the expiry of the term of his office on 30.09.2010, the said Ex-Chairman, executed the said agreement of sale cum general power of attorney on 28.09.2010 in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and the said document discloses that it is executed on behalf of the Tadipatri Municipality Council represented by the Chairperson. The document shows that in lieu of payment of Rs.3,50,000/-, the aforesaid land of Ac.25.09 cents is alienated with GPA giving full powers to use, sell, develop the aforesaid land by the beneficiaries in any manner, as they feel, without any time limit. The endorsements on the document show that the official market value of the land is Rs.80,000/-per acre totalling to Rs.20,08,000/-for which stamp duty was paid but the value of the document is shown to be Rs.3,50,000/-. 9. We are at a loss to appreciate as to how the Chairman could have delegated all his powers by a GPA to two individuals, as the office held by the Chairman is an elected office. We are also unable to appreciate the stand taken by the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipality, who pleads ignorance and even goes to the extent of stating in the counter affidavit at para 3 that “This respondent is not aware of the said transaction and the said land does not relate to this respondent as per this records of the Municipality”. The least that is expected of a Chairman and the Municipal Commissioner of a Municipality is to safeguard the property of the municipality, if not, improve the same. However, strangely, the then Chairman alienates the municipal property to private individuals betraying the public trust and even the Commissioner, who ought to have prevented such acts is blissfully ignorant and even when this Court has seized off the matter, does not show any anxiety to protect and safeguard the property and take appropriate action against the persons responsible, who tried to knock away the valuable property of the municipality. The show cause notice issued by the Commissioner to the Ex-Chairman as to why criminal action should not be initiated against him is even more astonishing, as the same was contrary to the directives given to the Commissioner by the Government as well as the Director of Municipal Administration, as the Commissioner was directed to initiate criminal prosecution instead of complying with the same, he gives a show cause notice and no action is forthcoming thereafter. 10. After noticing the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a clear attempt was made to knock away the property of the municipality through the process of creating intermediaries in the form of respondents 4 and 5 by the former Chairman and but for the said acts and omissions coming to our notice, the aforesaid property would have been lost by the municipality. 11. In view of the fact that neither the Ex-Chairman nor respondents 4 and 5 claim any right, title or interest over the said property and in view of the unequivocal stand taken by them that the property having been restored to the municipality, is under the control and possession of the municipality, we are of the view that the said property continues to remain the property of the municipality under its control and possession and is available for municipality for using it for a public purpose in terms of the intentions of the donors of the property. Hence, no further direction with regard to the said property is called for. 12. So far as the acts and omissions of the Ex-Chairman as well as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, we direct the Director General of Police to register an FIR through the jurisdictional inspector against the Ex-Chairman as well as respondents 4 and 5 and any other person found involved in, prima facie, commission of offences under Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and investigate the matter and proceed in accordance with law thereafter. The Director General of Police shall file a report with regard to compliance of the aforesaid directions before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of three (3) months from today. The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.