The Chief Engineer And Anr vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3493 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.200080/2019 (LA)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
       KNNL I.P.ZONE,
       KALABURAGI.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       I.D. I.P.C, DIV. NO.1,
       KALABURAGI.
                                           ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI GOURISH.S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
       M & MIP, KALABURAGI.
2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KALABURAGI.
3.     AMBAWWA W/O REVANSIDDAPPA,
       SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
       MALKAJAPPA S/O REVANSIDDAPPA,
       AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O NAGOOR VILLAGE,
       TQ: DIST. KALABURAGI.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                            2




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT
KALABURAGI IN LACA NO.482/2016 DATED 30.06.2017.


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


                     JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 27.05.2019 and it was

listed before the Court on 23.09.2019, at that time,

two weeks' time was granted for compliance of office

objections. Again on 20.11.2020 when the matter was

listed, 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.500/- payable by the appellants to the

Advocate's Library Fund. Thereafter, the matter was

listed on 08.12.2021, and finally one week time was

granted for compliance of office objections. 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 appeal is listed for compliance of

office objections for the sixth time. The appeal was

filed in the year 2019 and for more than 2 ½ 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