Bhimanagouda And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3488 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

               MSA NO.200298/2019 (LA)

BETWEEN:

1.     BHIMANAGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL,
       AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: PADEKANUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
       DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2.     SOMANAGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
       AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: PADEKANUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
       DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
                                        ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       VIJAYAPUR-586 101.

2.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
       / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       VIJAYAPUR-586 101.

3.     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       MINOR IRRIGATION, DIVISION
       VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
                            2




      THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT
OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR IN
THE LAC APPEAL NO.17/2014 DATED 23.04.2016 AND THEREBY
CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT MUDDEBIHAL IN LAC
NO.13/2011 DATED 22.01.2013 AND BE PLEASED TO
DETERMINE THE PROPER MARKET VALUE OF THE APPELLANT
LAND FOR A SUM OF RS.1,60,000/- PER ACRE WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                     JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 19.12.2019 and it was

listed before the Court on 29.06.2021, at that time

two weeks' time was granted for compliance of office

objections. On 13.08.2021, when the matter was

listed, again two weeks' time was granted to comply

with the office objections. Thereafter, the matter was

listed on 31.08.2021 and finally at the request of

learned counsel for the appellant, one week's time

was granted to comply with the office objections. On

19.11.2021, two weeks' time was granted subject to

payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable by the appellants

to the Advocate's Library Fund, High Court of

Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. It is forthcoming from

the records that in spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities, the learned counsel for the

appellants has not complied the office objections.

Today the matter is listed for compliance of

office objections for the fifth time. This appeal was

filed in the year 2019 and for more than two years,

the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to

comply with the office objections. It seems that the

appellants are not interested in prosecuting the

appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR