Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10369 (KAR)

IRANGOUDA AND ANR v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR

MFA/203241/2024 · 2025-06-17

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3146 MFA No. 203241 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO203241 OF 2024 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. IRANGOUDA S/O SANGAPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASARAKOD, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 2. SHANKARGOUDA S/O SANGAPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASARAKOD, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UKP ALMATTI, TQ: B.BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT, LAND ACQUISITION DIVISION, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT - 587 101. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3146 MFA No. 203241 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 74 (1) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, VIJAYAPURA DATED 23.02.2024 PASSED IN LAC NO.937 OF 2020 AND ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT When matter was listed for non-compliance of office objections for third time, learned counsel for appellants filed IA.no.1/2015 for extension of time for payment of Court fee. Said application was allowed on 03.04.2025 with condition that in case, Court fee is not paid within 30 days, appeal would stand dismissed. 2. This would indicate that appellant is not diligent in pursuing appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Ct/vk