Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs The Assistant Commissioner And ... on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
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
M.F.A. NO.200809 OF 2019 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MI DIVISION, VIJAYAPUR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOURISH S KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAO INDI.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
4. GANGADHAR CHANDRASHA BIRADAR,
5. SATAPPA S/O CHANDRASHA BIRADAR,
2
6. BASAMMA W/O MALLANNAPPA,
7. NAGABAI W/O CHANDRASHA BIRADAR,
ALL ARE R/O: TARAPUR, TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF
LAND ACQUISITION ACT R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.21/2015
DATED 15.12.2017 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDAGI. ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SINDAGI IN LAC NO21/2015 DATED 15.12.2017 AND
ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed on 20.04.2019. The matter
was listed before the Court on 19.08.2019. Two
weeks time was granted for compliance of office
objections. Again matter was listed on 12.09.2019.
One week's time was granted for compliance of office
objections. Matter was again listed on 10.10.2019, on
which date, one week time was granted for
compliance. Again on 11.12.2019, when the matter
was listed, learned counsel for the appellant took time
on the ground that matter was likely to be settled.
Again on 09.01.2020, one week time was granted for
compliance. On 28.01.2020, again a week's time was
granted. On 06.03.2020, finally a week's time was
granted for compliance of office objections, and it was
made clear that if the objections are not complied
within the said time, the appeal shall be dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections. Again the matter
was listed on 26.11.2020. On that day, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that due to
lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, he could
not comply with the office objections and hence the
peremptory order was recalled and two weeks time
was granted for compliance. Again on 16.02.2021,
two weeks time was granted and it was made clear
that if the office objections are not complied, the
appeal shall stand dismissed. On 16.11.2021 also,
finally one week time was granted for compliance of
office objections, on cost of Rs.1,000/-. Again on
13.12.2021, though cost was paid, office objections
were not complied and again one week time was
granted. Again on 03.03.2022, one week time was
granted and it was made clear that if office objections
are not complied within the said period, the appeal
shall be listed for dismissal.
2. Even today, the office objections are not
complied with. 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
RD
