Venkatalakshmamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5719 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Venkatalakshmamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23 February, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7655
                                                      MFA No. 394 of 2022




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2022 (LAC)

                   BETWEEN:

                          VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
                          DEAD BY LRS

                   1(a)   SAROJAMMA @ LAKSHMAMMA
                          D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                          W/O D.R. KRISHNEGOWDA
                          AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

                   1(b)   GOWRAMMA
                          D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                          AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

                   1(c)   PUTTAMMA
Digitally signed
                          D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
by SHARANYA T             W/O RAJEGOWDA
Location: HIGH            AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   1(d)   HONNAMMA
                          D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                          W/O DEVEGOWDA
                          AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

                   1(e)   SHARADAMMA
                          D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                          W/O DEVEGOWDA
                          AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7655
                                     MFA No. 394 of 2022




1(f)   YOGESHA
       S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

1(g)   INDIRAMMA
       D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

1(h)   RANGALAKSHMI
       D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       W/O HIRANNEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

1(i)   GOVINDARAJU
       S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

1(j)   PARVATHAMMA
       D/O LATE PUTTEGOWD
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

1(k)   P. THIRUMALESHA
       S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

1(l)   BASAVARAJU
       S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

1(m) TARAMANI
     D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
     W/O JAGADISHA,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

       ALL ARE R/AT KADAVINAKOTE VILLAGE
       HALEKOTE HOBLI
       HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
                                            ...APPELLANTS

       (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE[ABSENT])
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:7655
                                       MFA No. 394 of 2022




AND:

1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
     THE BUILDING OF D.C.OFFICE
     HASSAN-573222

2.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA
     HOLENARASIPURA -573211

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     HASSAN DISTRICT
     HASSAN

4.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560 001
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.01.2020
PASSED IN LAC NO.22/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE REFERENCES MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S.18(1)
OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

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

This Court vide order dated 09.02.2024 taken note of

inspite of matter listed for non-compliance of office

objections, the same was not complied and also taken

note of granting of time earlier on several occasions on the

NC: 2024:KHC:7655

request of the appellant's counsel and hence this Court

imposed cost of Rs.1,000/- and granted another two

weeks time. Inspite of the said order, the counsel has not

paid the cost and also not complied with the office

objections. Earlier this Court made it clear that if the

counsel does not comply with the office objections and not

paid the P.F, list the matter for dismissal. Inspite of it, the

counsel not pursued the matter diligently. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed for non compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RHS