Parashuram vs The Asst. Commissioner And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3110 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.201792/2019 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

PARASHURAM S/O DHAREPPA PANDRE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SATALAGAON, TQ. INDI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE ASST. COMMISSIONER &
       SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE
       VIJAYAPUR-586101

3.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       VIJAYAPUR
       DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101

4.     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       M.S. BUILDING
       BANGALORE-560001
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                                                 MFA No.201792/2019
                                2


      THIS    MISCELLANEOUS    FIRST   APPEAL    IS   FILED    UNDER
SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THEREBY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, INDI, IN LAC NO.18/2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
MODIFY BY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FROM
RS.3,44,250/- TO RS.4,00,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS.


      THIS    MISCELLANEOUS    FIRST   APPEAL    COMING       ON   FOR
ORDERS    THROUGH    PHYSICAL/VIDEO    CONFERENCING       HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              ORDER

The learned counsel for the appellant is physically present

in the Court and prays for two weeks' time to comply with the

office objections.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this

appeal of the year 2019, several and sufficient opportunities

were granted to the appellant to comply with the office

objections. Those office objections are very simple in nature,

like insertion of paragraph of valuation of the appeal and

swearing to the affidavit filed with IA. To comply these two

simple office objections, the appellant has taken more than a

year, still the office objections remained not complied. This

made this Court to pass a peremptory order on 19.11.2020 MFA No.201792/2019

finally granting three weeks' time to the appellant to comply

with the office objections otherwise, the matter would be listed

for dismissal. Inspite of the same, the appellant did not comply

with the office objections.

However, once again, this Court on 22.12.2020 by recalling

the peremptory order dated 19.11.2020, as a final chance,

granted four more weeks' time to comply with the office

objections. Despite the same, the appellant did not comply with

the office objections.

The matter was listed once again on 09.02.2021 wherein the

appellant repeated his request for some more accommodation to

comply the office objections. This Court by imposing cost of `100/-

granted two more weeks' time to the appellant to comply the office

objections. The appellant neither complied the office objections nor

paid the cost ordered. The matter was once again listed on

23.02.2021 when also, three more weeks' time was granted to do the

needful. Inspite of the same, the appellant did not evince any interest

in complying two simple office objections. The appellant neither paid

cost nor complied the office objections nor even showing any reason

for non-compliance. In such a situation, it has to be necessarily

inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in MFA No.201792/2019

complying the office objections. As such, the appeal stands

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*