Sayappa vs The Chief Engineer And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4043 Kant

                               1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


               MSA No.200201/2019 (LAC)

Between:

Sayappa S/o Ayyappa,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Antavaram Tq. Chincholi,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
                                               ... Appellant
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, Advocate)

And:

1.     The Chief Engineer,
       ID, IP, Zone, (North) Bijapur.

2.     The Executive Engineer,
       Minor Irrigation Division,
       Kalaburagi.

3.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       M & MIP Kalaburagi.

4.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Kalaburagi.
                                           ... Respondents
                              2




      This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under
Section 54(1) of L.A.Act praying to allow the appeal.
Interfere with the judgment and award of reference Court
in LACA No.154 of 2013 dated 15.10.2015.          Award by
enhancing /fixing the market value at Rs.3,37,500/- from
Rs.2,22,300/- per acre with all consequential statutory
benefits to meet the real ends of justice and equity.


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


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 11.09.2019. The matter

was listed before the Court on 09.12.2019. Two

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections. Again matter was listed on 16.11.2021.

One week time was granted for compliance.

Thereafter, matter was listed on 21.12.2021, on which

date, one week time was granted for compliance of

office objections subject to payment of cost of

Rs.200/-.

2. Today, matter is listed for non-compliance of

office objections for the 4th time. Inspite of granting

sufficient opportunities, learned counsel for the

appellant has not complied with the office objections

and it is forthcoming from the records that the learned

counsel for the appellant has not paid cost. Even

today there is no representation on behalf of the

appellant. Though the appeal is of the year 2019, 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*