Basalingappa S/O Mallikarjun And ... vs The Special Land Aquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3214 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH


     DATED THIS THE        24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                            BEFORE

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

                    M.S.A.No.847/2012
BETWEEN:

1.     Basalingappa,
       S/o. Mallikarjun,
       Age: about 38 years,
       Occ: Agriculture,
       r/o. Khadrapur,
       Tq. Shahapur.585 223.

2.     Smt. Girijamma,
       W/o. Siddramappa,
       Age, about 50 years,
       Occ: Agriculture,
       r/o. Khadrapur,
       Rq. Shahapur 585 223.
                                                    ..Appellants
(By Sri. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate )

AND:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
B. Gudi, Tq. Shahapur. 585 223.
                                                   .. Respondent
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Addl.Govt. Advocate)

                                  ****
      This M.S.A. is filed under Order 42 Rule 1 read with Section
54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying to modify the
judgment and Award dated 01-10-2011 passed in LACA
No.1/2011 by the Court of the District and Sessions Judge at
Yadgir and the judgment and award dated 03-11-2007 passed in
                                                    M.S.A.No.847/2012
                                    2


LAC No.4/2006 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) of Shorapur,
Sitting at Shahapur and award market value of the land as
`90,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits with cost
after calling for records, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This M.S.A. coming on for hearing through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the Court made the
following:
                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellants neither physically

present nor through video conference. No reasons are

forthcoming for the non-appearance of the learned counsel for

the appellants.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the

respondent alone is physically present.

3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that the

present appeal is of the year 2012 filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement in the compensation towards the acquisition of the

land. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 is shown to be as 03-04-2003, as such,

one of the old land acquisition matters. Still, the appellants

appears to have not evincing interest in prosecuting this appeal

which is of the year 2012.

M.S.A.No.847/2012

4. A perusal of the order sheet would further go to show

that on 13-10-2015, a peremptory order was made stating that

as a last chance, two weeks' time was granted to the appellants

to furnish the certified copy of the judgment and order in LAC

No.4/2006, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed

without reference to the Court. It appears that the said

peremptory order since came into force, the appellants

subsequently filed two interlocutory applications seeking

condonation of delay of 330 days in filing the application for

recalling the peremptory order dated 13-10-2015. Those two

interlocutory applications, i.e. I.A.No.1/2016 and I.A.No.2/2016

came to be allowed on 04-11-2016 and the appeal came to be

restored on file.

In spite of getting the appeal restored on file, till date, the

appellants have not proceeded further in the matter by

addressing their arguments on the main appeal. On

10-08-2021, this Court making it clear that the appeal is of the

year 2012 and no further adjournment would be granted in the

matter, had considered the request of the learned counsel for the

appellants and granted him a week's accommodation for

addressing his arguments. Accordingly, the matter came up M.S.A.No.847/2012

before this Court on 17-08-2021. On the said date also, none

appeared in the matter, as such, it stood adjourned to the next

week. Accordingly, the appeal is listed today.

In the above circumstance, in spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities and even after recalling the peremptory

order and restoring the appeal on its file, the appellants have not

evinced any interest in prosecuting the appeal. As such, the

appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*