SANNAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has taken the view that the request of the petitioner for Phodi and Durasthi work in respect of the lands stated to have been granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered since there was already Durasthi done in favour of the earlier grantees Lakkegowda s/o Karigowda and Lakkegowda s/o Krishnegowda. It has also been stated that as against the grant made in favour of the petitioner, an appeal has been preferred and until disposal of the said appeal, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Raju.S. vehemently contended that the observation that there was a grant in the year 1964 in favour of Lakkegowda s/o Karigowda and Lakkegowda s/o Krishnegowda, is wholly without any basis. He places reliance upon the endorsement dtd. 27/11/2020 issued by the Tahsildar, which is to the effect that there were no records available in the office of the Tahsildar indicating that the grant was made in favour of Lakkegowda s/o Karigowda and Lakkegowda s/o Krishnegowda.

(3.) The endorsement dtd. 27/11/2020 indicates that there were no records available in the office of the Tahsildar to indicate that there is a grant made in favour of the aforementioned two persons. In my view, in the light of the said endorsement, it would be appropriate to direct the Assistant Commissioner to re-consider the matter afresh.