IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.6779 OF 2017 (LAC) BETWEEN:
1. RAJEGOWDA, S/O.CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. KARIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR’s 2.(1). SMT.NINGAMMA, W/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
2 (2). SMT.H.K.YASHODA, D/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, W/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHANASOGE VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, 2(3). H.K.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2(4). H.K.RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2(5). SMT.NAGARATHNA, D/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, W/O S.P.JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SOLEKOPPLU, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK.
2(6).H.K.ASHOKA S/O LATE.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2(7).H.K.CHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE. KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. SANNEGOWDA S/O.CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.1, 2(1), 2(3), 2(4), 2(5), 2(6) AND 3 ARE R/O.HANASE THOPPALU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY GPO HOLDER, SRI.RAJEGOWDA, APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.NAGESH M, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HARANGI PROJECT, HUNSUR. ...RESPONDENT **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAIST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.42/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, HUNSUR, SITTING AT PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellants is absent. No representation.
In the present case as per the order dated 13.12.2018 there was a direction to the appellants to comply with the office objections within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. If the office objections are not complied with within such period, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal. But the office objections are not complied with until this day. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for non compliance of office objections. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl