The Executive Engineer vs The Assistant Commissioner And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4224 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


               MFA No.200808/2019 (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,
       Represented by
       Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur.
3.     The Prl. Secretary,
       Revenue Department,
       M.S.Building, Bangalore.

4.     Prashant Shrishail Jogur,
5.     Revansiddappa Shankrappa Jogur,

       Both are R/o: Tarapur, Tq: Sindagi,
       Dist: Vijayapur-586 202.
                                             ... Respondents
                              2




      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
54 of Land Acquisition Act R/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC
praying to call for the records in LAC No.23/2015 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 No.23/2015 dated
15.12.2017.


      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 14.08.2019. Three

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections. Again matter was listed on 25.09.2019

and time was granted upto 11.10.2019 for compliance

of office objections. Thereafter, matter was listed on

11.12.2019 and one week time was granted for

compliance. Matter was listed on 23.01.2020. One

week time was granted for compliance. Matter was

listed on 17.11.2020. Three weeks time was granted

for compliance. When the matter was listed on

16.02.2021, two weeks time was granted for

compliance making it clear that if office objections are

not complied, the appeal would be dismissed. Matter

was listed on 01.04.2021 and finally, one week time

was granted for compliance making it clear that if

office objections are not complied, the appeal would

stand dismissed. Matter was listed on 16.11.2021, on

which date, finally, one week time was granted for

compliance subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-.

When the matter was listed on 16.12.2021, learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that needful has

been done. But the office note indicates that the

learned counsel for the appellant has not complied the

office objections.

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

office objections for the 8th 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*