Kasturi Bai W/O Amruta Rao ... vs The State Through And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3283 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

                             BEFORE

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

     MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.200229/2018 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

KASTURI BAI
W/O AMRUTA RAO MANAKARI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE HARNAL, TQ. BHALKI
DIST. BIDAR

                                                ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE THROUGH
        CHIEF ENGINEER IPZ
        BIDAR

2.      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
        KNNL/BNT, BIDAR

3.      THE SLAO (M & MIP)
        BIDAR
                                             ... RESPONDENTS


        THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR., DN.,) DATED 14.12.2012 IN LAC
NO.91/2010 AND ALSO JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF ADDITIONAL
                                             MSA No.200229/2018
                                2


DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, SITTING AT BHALKI DATED
14.11.2014 IN M.A.NO.19/2014 AND FIX THE MARKET VALUE AT THE
RATE OF `5,50,000/- PER ACRE AND AWARD ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS.


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND 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 submits that the clients have not yet furnished

them the certified copy of the LAC judgment and award and as

such, they are unable to comply the office objections.

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

appeal of the year 2018, nearly for three years, the appellant

has not complied the office objections. The appeal is for

enhancement of compensation towards the alleged acquisition

of the land. In such a situation, I am of the view that if the

appellant herself is not interested in complying the office

objections by furnishing certified copy of the LAC judgment and

award, rather anticipating accumulation of interest by causing

delay in this appeal, then she does not deserve any further MSA No.200229/2018

opportunity. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*