Baburaddi S/O Tulasigerappa ... vs The Slao, Mp-1
2021 Latest Caselaw 1696 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                           AND

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

               M.F.A.NO.104471/2018 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

1.     BABURADDI,
       S/O TULASIGERAPPA NARAPPANAVAR,
       AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O HULAGERI , TQ: BADAMI,
       DIST: BAGALK OTE-587201.

2.     SUNANDA,
       D/O TULASIGERAPPA NARAPPANAVAR,
       AFTER MARRIAGE W/O BHIMANAGOUDA
       KENCHANAGOUDAR,
       AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O HULAGERI , TQ: BADAMI,
       DIST: BAGALK OTE-587201,
       REP.BY GPA HOLDER APPELLANT NO.1.
                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.M .PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE SLAO, MP-1 BAGALKOTE-587101.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       M.B.C. DIVISION NO.1,
       BAGALKOTE-587101.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1;
 SRI S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 :2:


     THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECT ION
54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAI NST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2010 PASSED IN LAC
NO.592/ 2007 ON THE FI LE OF T HE SENI OR CIVI L JUDGE,
BADAMI, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 18(1) OF L.A.ACT.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING I.A. THIS DAY,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

I.A.No.1/2019 is unnecessarily filed. The appellants

are the legal representatives of the deceased claimant.

The claimant died after the reference court passed its

award. The legal representative can prefer appeal as it is

their right. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive.

Accordingly, it is dismissed.

2. I.A.No.1/2018 is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking to condone delay of 3005 days in

filing this appeal.

3. We have heard the appellants' counsel and the

respondents' counsel on this application. The reference

court dismissed the petition under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act') for non-prosecution

on 22.06.2010. The claimant was the appellants' father.

He died in the year 2014. Until he was alive, he did not

think of preferring an appeal challenging the order dated

22.06.2010 or approaching reference court itself for

restoration of the reference petition. Four years after the

demise of the father, the appellants approached this court

by filing this appeal. Though they have stated that they

were not aware of the proceedings under Section 18 of the

Act, their affidavit does not disclose the date when they

came to know about the dismissal of the reference

petition after the death of the father. We don't find

sufficient cause for taking a lenient view to condone

delay. It may be a fact that the reference petition might

have been dismissed for non-prosecution, but when

negligence on the part of the appellants is very much

palpable, this court cannot exercise discretionary power to

condone delay. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2018 is dismissed.

Consequently appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE CLK