Shivalingamma And Ors vs The Spl. Lao And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4059 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.200153/2019 (LAC)

Between:

1.     Shivalingamma W/o Rachappa,
       Age: 76 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.     Sharanappa S/o Siddappa,
       Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.     Gurushantappa S/o Rachappa,
       Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.     Umadevi W/o Gurushantappa,
       Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
       All R/o.Srinivasa Sardagi,
       Tq: & Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                            ... Appellants
(By Smt. Anita M. Reddy, Advocate)

And:

1.     The Spl. LAO Kalaburagi
       for M & MIP, Room No.7,
       Mini Vidhan Soudha,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.

2.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       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 is filed on 27.06.2019. The matter

was listed before the Court on 20.11.2019. Two

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections. Again matter was listed on 08.11.2021.

One week time was granted for compliance. Matter

was again listed on 15.12.2021, on which date, one

week time was granted for compliance 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

appellants has not complied with the office objections.

Even today there is no representation on behalf of the

appellants and it is forthcoming from the records that

the learned counsel for the appellants has not paid

cost. Though the appeal is of the year 2019, 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

NB*