JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.—We have heard the learned Government Advocate in support of the appeal and the Respondent's learned Counsel on merits. The controversy that has given rise to this appeal can be very briefly summarised by pointing out that the Respondent's husband was an ex. Commander who had served the Indian Navy. He was a distinguished officer insofar he had been commended and decorated for his services. In keeping with the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, he applied for the grant of a plot of land in Gabbadi village, Kanakapura Taluk and by an order dated 26.8.1983 an area of 9.36 acres in Survey No. 66 of that village was granted to him. According to the department, some protest was raised and the department had occasion to reconsider the grant and an order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 31.12.1985 cancelling the same. The reason for this was because the officer had been served with a show-cause notice dated 8.7.1985 wherein effectively it was contended that he had represented his income as being Rs. 6,000/- per annum whereas according to the authorities it was over Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The reason for mention of the latter figure i.e. Rs. 12,000/- was because that was the upper limit according to the authorities at the relevant time and in his reply, the officer pointed out that the figures disclosed by him were correct and that they could be verified from the pension pay master Bangalore. Regardless of this position, by an order dated 31.12.1985 the grant was cancelled without assigning any reasons whatsoever. The officer, as normally happens tried to represent to the authorities and finally moved this Court by way of a Writ Petition whereupon the authorities agreed to reconsider the order in question. According to the Respondent's learned Counsel, since no reconsideration ever took place and since the officer had since passed away, Writ Petition No. 22015 of 1998 was filed wherein the Petitioner challenged the setting aside of the earlier order of grant in her husband's favour and prayed for the issuance of the saguvali chit. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties in a rather strongly worded order dated 31.1.2000 ordered the Respondents namely, the State and its officers to put the Petitioner in possession of the land within three months and to issue requisite saguvali chit. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties in a rather strongly worded order dated 31.1.2000 ordered the Respondents namely, the State and its officers to put the Petitioner in possession of the land within three months and to issue requisite saguvali chit. As is characteristic with the public authorities, the order was not complied with but instead Writ Petition 3914 of 2000 was filed challenging that order through the present Writ Petition, another ingenious obstacle was thought of by the officers insofar as they contended that during the intervening period, the Tahsildar had passed an order on 23.7.1999 whereby the authorities had rejected the request for reconsideration of the order dated 31.12.1985 and had confirmed the order dated 26.8.1983. One of the contentions raised in the present appeal is that the subsequent order dated 23.7.1999 has not been challenged and that even if the order dated 31.12.1985 is set aside by this Court that the order dated 23.7.1999 since it has not been challenged and has become final, would still bind the parties. 2. In our considered view, this last contention is absolutely puerile. There are limits to harassment at the hands of public authorities and this case is a classic illustration of how the widow of an ex-serviceman is being made to run from pillar to post and is being harassed by a set of obviously motivated and heartless officers. It is elementary that if the authorities have refused to reconsider the order dated 31.12.1985 and have passed the order dated 23.7.1999, that the order dated 31.12.1985 is still operative and it is that order which is the subject-matter of the challenge in the Writ Petition. The refusal to reconsider the order therefore makes absolutely no difference to the record or to the position in law. 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the cancellation was valid because one is required to go back to the original date of the litigation and it is necessary to consider whether as on that date the allotment was legally sustainable or not. To this extent, the learned Government Advocate is absolutely right and it is for this reason that we have perused the show-cause notice that was issued. The subsidiary grounds are of no consequence because the real objection raised was that the annual emoluments of the officer concerned are supposed to have been declared at Rs. To this extent, the learned Government Advocate is absolutely right and it is for this reason that we have perused the show-cause notice that was issued. The subsidiary grounds are of no consequence because the real objection raised was that the annual emoluments of the officer concerned are supposed to have been declared at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and the authorities stated in the show-cause notice that his emoluments were over Rs. 12,000/-. On what basis they have made this statement is not disclosed. The officer was a pensioner in the Indian Navy and if the authorities were doubtful about the correctness of the pension that had been declared by him, it was open to them to have checked the records from the pension pay master at Bangalore which they have obviously not done. The premise on which the show-cause notice was issued is therefore groundless. Regardless of that however, if one were to look at the last order that has been passed on 23.7.1999 a copy of which has been furnished to us by the learned Government Advocate, we find that the authorities have accepted the position that during November 1982 the officer was drawing a pension of Rs. 787/- per month and they have worked out his annual income at Rs. 9,444/-. Once again in the order dated 23.7.1999 the authorities have without any application of mind stated that the income limit was Rs. 5,000/- when in fact, it is clear from their own show-cause notice that the income at the relevant time was Rs. 12,000/-. The learned Counsel who are appearing in the case before us have verified the position from the relevant books and it was disclosed that at the relevant time, the upper limit was Rs. 12,000/-. Consequently, if the officer was at that time earning Rs. 9,444/- his income was well within the upper limit prescribed by the relevant rule. Under these circumstances, the cancellation or the revocation of the grant was totally unjustified and similarly, the refusal to reconsider the grant as per the order dated 23.7.1999 was also unjustified. It is for this reason that learned Single Judge not only allowed the Petition but directed a time bound relief. Under these circumstances, the cancellation or the revocation of the grant was totally unjustified and similarly, the refusal to reconsider the grant as per the order dated 23.7.1999 was also unjustified. It is for this reason that learned Single Judge not only allowed the Petition but directed a time bound relief. There are issues of propriety involved in this case and the learned Single Judge has very rightly observed that in this case he was concerned with the widow of a distinguished ex-serviceman and that consequently, the interests of justice required that she should be given a relief that was both meaningful and time bound. 4. We are of the view that the grounds of challenge that are presented by the State are really technical insofar as we have dealt with the main one namely the fact that the order dated 23.7.1999 is not challenged specifically and recorded our findings on the same. Secondly, the entire premise on which the grant was cancelled has been demonstrated to be erroneous and consequently, this Court confirms the order passed by the learned Single Judge and reiterates the position that the grant to the officer concerned is valid and that it will have to be given effect to. The learned Single Judge was justified in issuing a timebound direction despite which the officers of the State Government have devised various means of litigating in order to avoid the implementation of the order passed by the High Court. The learned Single Judge had passed the order on 31.1.2000 and now we are in the month of August 2001 and the time limit set down by the learned Single Judge which was three months from the date of the order has not been given effect to. The obvious justification is that the Respondents had filed the present appeal. The fact that the appeal is devoid of substance will make some different to the directions which this Court is now required to issue. The appeal stands dismissed and we direct the Registrar General and the learned Government Advocate to forward the copies of this order to the appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 within fifteen days from today. The office shall issue copies of this order to the parties forthwith. The appeal stands dismissed and we direct the Registrar General and the learned Government Advocate to forward the copies of this order to the appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 within fifteen days from today. The office shall issue copies of this order to the parties forthwith. The Respondents 2 to 5 shall give effect to the directions of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of sixty days from the date on which the order is communicated to them and shall thereafter report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. If no compliance is reported within the period of sixty days, the Registrar General shall place the proceedings before the Court for appropriate directions and it will be necessary for this Court to warn the concerned officers that action under the Contempt of Court's Act will be instituted against each of them personally. The fact of this case made pathetic reading and have forced this Court to observe that apparently the Respondents to the original petition have no respect for Court directions. 5. The track record of this case is not only distressing but alarming and the manner in which a distinguished ex-serviceman has been treated is shameful and the manner in which his widow is treated thereafter is unpardonable. This Court would be failing in its duty if it allows the officers who are responsible for this state of affairs to get away. We have looked at the figures that are the subject-matter of this dispute and we find that a distinguished officer who was drawing a very meager pension and thereafter his widow, have had to litigate for over five years in order to get their rightful entitlement. The least that this Court can do is to quantify the costs payable to the Respondents to this appeal at Rs. 10,000/- and, in order to make an example of officers who behave in this fashion, the costs shall not be paid by the State of Karnataka but the officers responsible for these atrocities shall be identified by the government and the amount shall be recovered equally from the salaries of the four officers and deposited in the High Court. The appellant shall ensure that these costs are deposited within an outer limit of sixty days from today. 6. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed with costs. Copies to be furnished to the parties forthwith.