Basavaraj And Anr vs The Spl. Lao And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3492 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.200120/2019 (LA)
BETWEEN:

1.     BASAVARAJA S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
       AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2.     MALLIKARJUN S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
       AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

       BOTH ARE KHAJAKOTNOOR,
       TQ. AND DIST.KALABURAGI.
                                           ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. ANITA M.REDDY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

1.     THE SPL. LAO KALABURAGI,
       FOR M & MIP, ROOM NO.7,
       MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
       KALABURAGI-585102.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KALABURAGI.

3.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       MI DIVN. IWAN-E-SHAHI,
       KALABURAGI.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                             2




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL       AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 15.04.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN LACA NO.220/2014 TO BE MODIFIED
BY   ENHANCING   THE    AMOUNT   OF   COMPENSATION   AT
RS.2,98,651/- PER ACRE FOR DRY LAND, WITH ALL STATUTORY
BENEFITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


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

                       JUDGMENT

There is no representation on behalf of the

appellants. This appeal was listed before the Court on

13.09.2019, at that time two weeks' time was granted

for compliance of office objections. On 07.11.2019

when the matter was listed, again two weeks' time

was granted to comply with the office objections.

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26.10.2021 and

one week's time was granted to comply with the office

objections subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/-

payable by the appellants to the Advocate's Library

Fund. On 08.12.2021, again one week's time was

granted for compliance. It is forthcoming from the

records that in spite of granting several and sufficient

opportunities, the appellants have not complied the

office objections and have not paid the cost.

Today the matter is listed for compliance of

office objections for the fifth time. There is no

representation on behalf of the appellant. This appeal

was filed in the year 2019 and for more than two

years, the appellants have 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