Peerappa And Anr vs The Spl.Lao And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3527 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.200121/2019 (LA)
BETWEEN:

1.     PEERAPPA S/O SAIBANNA,
       AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2.     SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O SAIBANNA,
       AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

       BOTH ARE R/O KHAJAKOTNOOR VILLAGE,
       VENKAT BENNUR (POST)
       TQ. 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,
       M.I. DIVISION,
       KALABURAGI.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                               2




        THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.


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


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 19.06.2019 and it was

listed before the Court on 07.11.2019, at that time

three weeks' time was granted for compliance of office

objections. On 29.10.2021 when the matter was

listed, again one week's time was granted to comply

with the office objections. Thereafter, the matter was

listed on 02.12.2021 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. 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 fourth time. There is no

representation for the appellants. This 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