Sri. Mariyappa vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1464 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                             BEFORE

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

       MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.96 OF 2016


BETWEEN:

SRI MARIYAPPA
S/O CHIKKAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/AT MALLAGHATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K ADVOCATE)


AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CHANNEL DIVISION
TUMAKURU.
                                                   ... RESPONDENT


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 54(2) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 28.01.2015 PASSED BY THE    COURT OF FIRST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSTIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN R.A.NO.77/2011 CONFIRMING
                                                      MSA 96/2016
                                   2


THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL IN LAC NO.146/2011 AND ALLOW THE
REFERENCE AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.



      THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant who is appearing physically,

filed a memo stating that the appellant has expressed his inability

to pay the court fee of `23,830/-. Orally, the learned counsel for

the appellant submits that taking the said memo on record, the

appeal may be disposed of for non payment of the court fee.

2. A perusal of the record goes to show that Registry has

raised objection that not less than seven times opportunity was

given for compliance of office objections still appellant has not

complied the office objections. Apart from the objection regarding

deficit court fee, there are various other office objections totally six

in number which have not yet been complied with.

MSA 96/2016

3. The cost imposed on the previous occasion totally

amounting to `1,000/- payable to Bengaluru Professionals

Benevolent Fund also has not been paid though ordered specifically.

In that regard learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant has expressed his inability to pay the deficit court fee. As

such, the cost also cannot be paid by him.

In view of the memo and supporting submission, for the non

payment of the deficit court fee and for non compliance of office

objections, the appeal stands rejected. However, the Bengaluru

Professionals Benevolent Fund is at liberty to recover the cost of

`1,000/- ordered in its favour by this Court in this matter, in a

process known to law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sac*