Executive Engineer vs Prakash And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5020 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

          M.F.A. NO.200544 OF 2019 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND DRAINAGE BOARD, GULBARGA
DIVISION KALABURAGI.
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADV.)

AND

1.    PRAKASH
      S/O MALKAPPA
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI
      R/O NANDIKOOR VILLAGE
      TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 102

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      KALABURAGI - 585 102

3.    OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      KALABURAGI - 585 102
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
                             2



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE   AT   KALABURAGI    IN  LAC   No.81/2014    AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE REFERENCE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 14.03.2019. The matter

was listed before the Court on 10.07.2019. Three

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections, failing which, the appeal shall be listed for

dismissal. Accordingly, appeal came to be dismissed

on 14.08.2019. Appellant filed an application in

I.A.No.1/2020 seeking to recall the order dated

14.08.2019. The said application came to be allowed

vide order dated 11.02.2020. Thereafter matter was

listed on 09.11.2021, 30.11.2021, 17.01.2022 and

31.01.2022. On 10.03.2022, finally one week time

was granted for compliance on payment of cost of

Rs.1,000/-, failing which, the matter be listed for

dismissal on 17.03.2022.

2. Today, learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant has paid the cost of

Rs.1,000/-, but has not complied with the office

objections. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity,

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

RD