( 1 ) THE petitioner herein had challenged the endorsement dated 13-1-1999 in No. NCR;sr:837 of 1991-92 issued by the respondent 4-Tahsildar. In issuing the same, the said Revenue Authority informed the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 2-4-1998 rejected the prayer for alienation of 30 cents of land out of the total extent of 44 guntas in Sy. No. 6/1p as there was an embargo under the grant order, not to alienate the granted land for a period of 15 years. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Dhananjeya. It is his argument that the impugned endorsement issued by the Tahsildar was without jurisdiction. It was also pointed out by him that the petitioner herein had filed an application dated 30-12-1998 before the Deputy commissioner for seeking permission to alienate the said extent of land for the purpose of developing the rest of the land. ( 3 ) THIS matter had been listed for preliminary hearing on 18-2-1999, At the instance of the Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate secured the records. Though he was directed to file the objection statement, he submitted that the matter can as well be disposed of on the basis of the records secured by him. ( 4 ) IT is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate with reference to the records that the petitioner herein had filed an application on 1-9-1997 seeking permission of the Deputy commissioner for alienation of the above extent of land on the ground that she wanted to purchase some other extent of land as the subject land was within the Municipal limit of Puttur municipality. As I see, it is in consideration of that application filed by the petitioner, the Deputy commissioner had passed an order on 2-4-1998, copy whereof is found in page No. 8 of the records of the Deputy Commissioner. As a matter of fact, it is that order that was adverted to by the Tahsildar at Serial No. 2 in the reference in the endorsement under challenge. ( 5 ) IF the petitioner had earlier filed an application with a prayer to permit her for alienation of the above extent of land before the Deputy Commissioner and that application was rejected by the deputy Commissioner, the petitioner cannot resort to the instant writ petition on a different plea. ( 5 ) IF the petitioner had earlier filed an application with a prayer to permit her for alienation of the above extent of land before the Deputy Commissioner and that application was rejected by the deputy Commissioner, the petitioner cannot resort to the instant writ petition on a different plea. To me, it appears that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and came up with a false plea citing the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar. From the very endorsement it is clear that the same came to be issued by the Tahsildar based on the orders passed by the Deputy commissioner on the request of the petitioner to permit her to alienate part of the land. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, I feel that a pinch of cost should be awarded as against the petitioner for filing this writ petition on false plea. The writ petition therefore stands rejected with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-payable to the State. ( 7 ) THE State is at liberty to recover the same as if it is the arrears of land revenue, in the event, the same is not paid within a period of 3 months from this date. ( 8 ) THE writ petition therefore stands rejected. ( 9 ) AT this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cost be waived. I do not think this Court should waive off the cost, for there is a message in awarding the cost to the petitioner. That message is, not only for the petitioner herein, but to so many others who may be coming up before Court with false pleas. The prayer of the Counsel to waive off the cost therefore stands rejected.