AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The first respondent after issuing show-cause notice on 11-3-1998 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assignment made in her favour in respect of the schedule land shall not be cancelled, passed the final order on 16-4-1998 directing resumption of the subject land. The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent requesting him to issue certified copy of the order dated 16-4-1998. The first respondent issued an endorsement dated 22-10-1998 which reads as under :
"The assignment made in your favour of the land in Sy. Nos.114/1,4,5,6 and 7 to an extent of Ac.2.31 cts. is cancelled as you have violated the conditions laid down in the D Form patta and as you are not the resident of the village.
As the above land is a Govt. land it is decided not to furnish certified copy of the said orders to you."
Since the petitioner was not furnished with the certified copy of the order dated 16-4-1998, an appealable order, the petitioner could not prefer an appeal to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. Under those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed in this Court seeking intervention of the Court.
This Court on 8-3-1999 issued Rule Nisi and directed the first respondent to appear in person at 10-30 a.m. on 30-3-1999. The Court also directed to maintain status-quo which obtained as on 8-3-1999 till further orders.
In response to the direction, the first respondent appeared in person on 30-3-1999 and he was represented by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. At the request of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the case was adjourned to this day. Today the first respondent has filed the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that he issued the impugned endorsement dated 22-10-1998 due to his "lack of perception, naivety and ignorance of legal implications" and stated that the said action was neither wilful nor deliberate. The first respondent has also offered his unconditional apology to the Court undertaking that he would not repeat such action in future.
It is trite to state that a public officer, such as the first respondent, holding a responsible position should not have refused to supply certified copy of the order dated 16-4-1998. The order made by the first respondent dated 16-4-1998 was under the Statute, in other words, a statutory order, and the affected interest in law is entitled to seek certified copy of the order and there is a corresponding duty cast on the public officer to issue the certified copy of such order. Having regard to the unconditional apology offered by the first respondent, it may not be an appropriate case for the Court to take further action to punish the first respondent. On account of refusal on the part of the first respondent, the writ petitioner was unnecessarily driven to this Court by way of this writ petition by spending a considerable sum of money towards Court fee and Counsel''s fee apart from suffering agony. Merely because the first respondent has offered unconditional apology, that fact itself shall not come in the way of the Court to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner to do complete justice.
Taking all these considerations into account, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions.
(i) The petitioner is permitted to avail of appeal remedy before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer and all the contentions raised in the writ petition are kept open to be agitated before the RDO.
(ii) The first respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the petitioner towards exemplary cost within a period of 10 days form today. It is made clear that this liability to pay the cost is individual and personal liability of the first respondent.
(iii) The State shall not reimburse the cost of the first respondent.