Executive Engineer vs Rukkappa And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3609 Kant

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


              MFA No.201734/2018 (LAC)

Between:
Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply
And Drainage Board Gulbarga,
Division Kalaburagi.
                                       ... Appellant
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)

And:

1.     Rukkappa S/o Ramu Mang,
       Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture

2.     Mallesh S/o Ramu Mang,
       Age: Major (L.R. Smt. Sarswati
       W/o Mallesh Mang),

       Both are R/o Nandikoor village,
       Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585 102.

3.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.

4.     The Assistant Commissioner &
       Land Acquisition Officer,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.
                                         ... Respondents
                                 2




      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to allow the
above Misc. First Appeal and consequently be pleased to
modify the judgment and award dated 08.08.2017 passed
by   the   learned    III-Additional   Senior    Civil   Judge   at
Kalaburagi   in   LAC    No.67/2014     and     consequently     be
pleased to dismiss the reference.


      This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal was listed before the Court on

07.01.2019, at that time, three weeks' time was granted

for compliance of office objections. On 08.03.2019,

when the matter was listed, again two weeks' time was

granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter,

the matter was listed on 03.04.2019 and two weeks'

time was granted to comply with the office objections

making it clear that if office objections are not complied,

the matter would be posted for dismissal. Again, the

matter was listed on 17.06.2019, on which day, the

Court issued Court notice to the Managing Director and

the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply

and Drainage Board, Gulbarga Division, Kalaburagi, to

take necessary steps to ensure that proceedings are

conducted effectively. On 02.07.2019, report was filed

stating that Managing Director is yet to be served and

the Executive Engineer is served. Further, appellant was

directed to comply with the order and if the appellant

fails to comply with the order, the appeal would be listed

before the Court for dismissal. Matter was listed on

22.07.2019, on that day, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that needful is done and office was

directed to verify and proceed further. On 19.08.2019,

this Court dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the

appellant filed application for recalling the order dated

19.08.2019. Vide order dated 11.02.2020, the said

application came to be allowed and the order dated

19.08.2019 was recalled. Thereafter, matter was listed

on 08.07.2021. Finally, one week time was granted to

comply with the office objections making it clear that if

office objections are not complied, the appeal would be

dismissed for non-prosecution. Matter was listed on

12.11.2021 and finally, one week time was granted to

comply with the office objections subject to cost

Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, matter was listed on

19.11.2021, on that day, finally two weeks' time was

granted to comply with the office objections subject to

payment of costs.

The appeal is of the year 2018. Today, matter is

listed for the fourth time for compliance of office

objections. On earlier occasion, appeal was dismissed

for non-compliance of office objections. Subsequently,

the appeal was re-admitted on 11.02.2020. Even after

re-admission of appeal, the learned counsel for appellant

has failed to comply with the office objections. Inspite

of granting sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for

the appellant has failed to comply with the office

objections. It seems that the appellant is not interested

in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*