Tahsildar and Others vs Gurappa Shiddappa Rolli

This appeal is filed against the order dated 6-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the Assistant Commissioner-second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of land within three months and to report compliance to this Court. The learned Single Judge imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the Assistant Commissioner personally.

The grievance of the appellants is that the application of the petitioner was considered and rejected but the true fact was not placed before the learned Single Judge as the concerned file was not made available to the Government Pleader who represented on behalf of the appellants. I.A. No. I of 2008 is filed producing certain documents. One of the documents so produced is an endorsement dated 18-7-2005 said to have been served on the respondent informing rejection of his application for grant of land.

It is pertinent to note that at page 3 of the appeal memorandum while mentioning the facts it is stated that respondent had not filed application dated 18-3-2003 and hence consideration of the said application had not arisen. This denial of filing application cannot be believed. In the endorsement dated 18-7-2005 now produced, it is mentioned that as per the letter dated 4-7-2005 under reference (1) therein, endorsement was already issued to him. If application itself was not filed, there was no necessity to issue the endorsement/letter dated 4-7-2005.

At page 4 of the appeal memorandum it is stated that the respondent filed another application dated 24-2-2005 and the same had been considered and endorsement dated 18-7-2005 was issued. Strangely, in that endorsement there is no reference to the application dated 24-2-2005. That apart, signature of one Nandappa Eerappa Rolli is obtained on the said endorsement. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that it was personally served on the respondent. Respondent is Gurappa Shiddappa Rolli. The two names are different.

Another aspect is, normally official communications will be sent by post. Additional Government Advocate submitted that for having served the endorsement on the respondent, mahazar is drawn and witnesses have signed it. It is a strange procedure appears to have been adopted in this case by the Tahsildar. This must have been done after the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition imposing cost on the Assistant Commissioner. Probably in order to overcome the said order, the appellants might have adopted such dubious procedure. Even the endorsement also does not bear the seal of the Tahsildar, his signature is also not visible. Therefore, we decline to accept the case sought to be made out to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.

So far as the request made to waive the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the learned Single Judge took note of the laches on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It was noticed that despite direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner and even after filing of this writ petition the request of respondent was not considered. Therefore, cost was imposed. We decline to interfere with the discretionary power exercised by the learned Single Judge.

The way in which the matter is being handled warrants imposition of costs of this appeal also but since cost is already imposed by the learned Single Judge, we do not propose to do so. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As directed by the learned Single Judge, compliance report shall be filed.