- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1241 OF 2023 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KRISHNAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. 1(a). SMT. M GOWRAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA, W/O LATE ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, EJIPURA, MINES ROAD, CHIKKATHAYAPPA COMPOUND, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560047. 1(b). SMT. M RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.58, SRIRAMAPURA, OPPOSITE MARAMMA DEVI TEMPLE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560064. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 1(c). SMT. LALITHAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAMMA, W/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST CROSS ROAD, R.B. MANSION, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HOSKOTE TOWN - 562114. 4. SRI. M GOPAL, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. SRI. M RAJU @ RAJANNA, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 6. SRI. M RAVINDRA, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 7. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 8. SRI. C MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 9. SRI. C MANJUNATH, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 10. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 11. SRI. J VENKATESH, S/O LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 12. SRI. J MANJUNATH, S/O LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 13. SRI. J MUNIKRISHNA, S/O LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 13 ARE R/AT DEVINAGAR, KANNUTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, RMV II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560094. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHIDANANDA P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560009. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, III FLOOR, V.V.TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. M/S NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (NAME CHANGED TO M/S NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.), G-5, PLACE ORCHARDS SOCIETY APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560080, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23-8-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 40102/2016, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.40102/2016. The writ petition was filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge by stating that, they are the owners of three pieces of land measuring 9 guntas each. They sought a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) have stood lapsed insofar as the schedule properties in the petition are concerned. 2. The facts to be noted are, a preliminary notification dated 04.01.1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, which was followed by a final notification dated 25.09.1986 issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act. It was the case of the appellants that, a suit for partition was filed amongst the family members in OS No.417/1985 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and in terms of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 compromise decree drawn by the Civil Court, on 17.04.1985, Sri. Muniyellappa, Sri. Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri. Junjappa were allotted 9 guntas of land each in Sy.No.62/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. The appellants claim through the said three persons. 3. The appellants herein had, earlier filed WPs No.9673-9675/2011 and 23467/2011 seeking quashing of the acquisition notifications and the award dated 28.01.1989 and 31.01.1989. They had also challenged the notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and 04/06.11.1992 issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act. 4. The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that, after the new Act viz., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’ for short) was enacted and provision was made in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 deeming certain acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act as lapsed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 5. It was the case of the appellants that, Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is fully attracted although acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1985 and notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act was issued on 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992, as the actual physical possession of the lands belonging to the appellants were never taken. The appellants continue to be in physical possession of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/2. It was also contended that, no material is available on record to show that physical possession was actually taken in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority -Vs.- Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. It was their case that, no panchanama was drawn to show that physical possession of the lands in question were taken. It was also their case that, the original records which were placed before the Court do not evidence the fact that notice before passing the award and notice calling upon the appellants to receive the compensation were - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 issued and served on the appellants. Their case was also that, although award notice dated 31.05.1991 is found in the original records calling upon Sri. Muniyellappa, Sri. Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri. Junjappa to receive the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short), nevertheless, no material is available on record to show that such notice was served on such persons. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to contend that unless the award amount is deposited in the Treasury in the name of the persons in whose favour the award is drawn, it cannot be concluded that the award amount has been deposited in accordance with law. In that view of the matter it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that, they have established neither possession is taken nor award amount is paid to the appellants and as such, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 6. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.4- NTI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. was that, a total extent of 184 acres 1 gunta of land acquired for the benefit of the respondent No.4-Society. Award was passed in the year 1989, more particularly in respect of the lands in question on 31.01.1989 and possession was taken on 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992. In that regard, reference was made to notification published in the Official Gazette in terms of the State amendment viz., sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. It was also their case that, the Society has secured necessary permission and sanctioned layout plan at the hands of the Planning Authority and thereafter, formed the layout and distributed sites to the members of the Society. That being the position, it would be impermissible for the appellants to contend that possession of 27 guntas of land was not taken or that layout has not been formed on the land in question. It was also their case that, it may be true that a portion of the land in question may appear to be vacant, nevertheless, on facts it has been clarified that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 a portion of the land in question has been earmarked as ‘park’ and the same is fenced. Therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to contend that the lands in question are lot developed. It was also their case that, since award is passed, possession is taken and the scheme has been implemented, the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are not attracted in the present case. Even the learned AGA appearing for the State had furnished the original records at the asking of the Court. While pointing out to the original records, it was submitted that, the records clearly indicate that award was passed in respect of Sy.No.62/2 on 31.01.1989 and the compensation amount has been deposited in the Treasury. An award notice dated 31.05.1991 was issued to the aforesaid three persons calling upon them to receive the compensation amount, which would clearly meet the requirement in terms of the law laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 7. The learned Single Judge has, in paragraphs No.7 to 12, concluded as under: “7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society, learned AGA for the respondent- State, Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer and perused the petition papers. This Court has also looked into the original records furnished at the hands of the learned AGA. 8. It should be noticed that this writ petition was filed on 25.07.2016 and the grounds have been prepared based on the decision of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Another (2014) 3 SCC 183. Heavy reliance is sought to be placed on the said decision, wherein it was held that deposit of the award amount in the Government Treasury would not amount to payment of compensation, unless it is paid to the interested person or deposited with the reference court. However, since the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was reconsidered in Indore Development Authority (supra) by a Constitutional Bench and it was held that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, carves out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where two negative conditions have been prescribed, therefore, even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse and such an - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 interpretation logically flows from the 1894 Act read with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, it is clear from the records, that an award notice dated 31.05.1991 was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, calling upon Sri Muniyellappa, Sri Chikkamuniyellappa and Sri Junjappa to receive the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It can therefore be presumed that since the claimants did not receive the compensation, the award amounts are found deposited in the State Treasury. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners, even in respect of the award amount not being paid to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. Moreover, notifications dated 18.04.1991 and 17.12.1992 have been issued and gazetted in compliance of the State amendment viz., sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, which would evidence the factum of taking possession in accordance with law. Therefore, on both counts, the writ petition should fail. 9. More importantly, the acquisition proceedings were initiated for the benefit of the 4th respondent-society and its members. The layout has been formed and a Relinquishment Deed dated 31.05.2008 was executed by the 4th respondent- society in favour of Bangalore Development Authority, relinquishing the roads, parks, open spaces, and civil amenity sites in favour of Bangalore - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 Development Authority. Of course, a Rectification Deed dated 18.12.2009 was also executed by the 4th respondent-society, since some structures were found in some of the areas that were earlier relinquished in favour of BDA, as a consequence of which alternative vacant lands were handed over. These actions and documents would clearly evidence the fact that the purpose for which the lands were acquired have been fulfilled and the lands in question cannot be restored in favour of the petitioners. 10. Further, as noticed earlier, the petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications, the award and notification issued under Section 16(2) and the said writ petitions were dismissed. This writ petition is filed to avail the benefits flowing from the provisions contained in the Act, 2013, more particularly, Section 24(2). In this regard, it has to be noticed that the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, in Indore Development Authority (supra) clearly held that Section 24 of Act, 2013, cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. The provisions of Section 24 do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the court, where the rights and claims are lost and negatived. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. However, since it is found on verification of the original records that the award amount has been deposited in the State Treasury, the petitioners are free to seek disbursal of the award amount, in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. All the original records shall be handed over to the learned AGA forthwith.” Submissions: 8. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are primarily the same which have been urged by him before the learned Single Judge. In other words, it is his submission that, the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule properties stand lapsed insofar as the appellants are concerned, as the respondents have neither paid the compensation to the appellants nor have - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 deposited the same with the Reference Court as required under Section 31 of the LA Act. That apart it is his submission that, the award having been passed about two decades back and the award predated the commencement of the Act of 2013 by well over five years and compensation not being paid to the appellants, Section 24(2) comes into operation in favour of the appellants and the acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule properties are liable to be set aside as lapsed. He also stated that, neither the State Government nor the Competent Authority have acted pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and have taken possession of the schedule properties from the appellants at any point of time and hence, the actual possession of schedule properties continues to vest with the appellants. Hence, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed on this ground as well. He reiterates that, the appellants continue to be in possession of the schedule properties and hence, he states that the learned Single Judge has erred in not looking into - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 the evidence in proper perspective, resulting in the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 justifies the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. He has drawn our attention to the objections filed by respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge. In this regard, he would submit that, this is the second round of litigation by the appellants; they having challenged the acquisition proceedings in WPs No.9673-675/2011 and 23467/2011 before this Court, which have been dismissed. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the order at page No.242 of the paper book (Annexure-K), wherein the learned Single Judge has, while dismissing the petition, in paragraph No.10, held as under: “10. The said decisions are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also noticed that the acquisition has been upheld by this Court in several decisions of the Division Bench particularly in the order dated 18.3.2010 passed in W.A.No. 1480/2008 wherein the contentions which have been - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 raised by the petitioners herein have been answered against the land owners. Even the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was withdrawn. Said order is binding at this Court. Further on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the very same contentions raised by the petitioners herein have been considered and negatived by order dated 21.4.2010 by this Court. W.P. Nos. 21863/2011, 22966/2011 have also been dismissed by me on the ground of delay as against the very same society by order dated 5.07.2011. Therefore these writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The contentions raised by the petitioners would not call for any consideration after over twenty five years ears since the issuance of the notifications. In the result, these writ petitions are rejected.” 10. That apart, his submission is by drawing our attention to paragraphs No.5 to 12 of the statement of objections filed by him before the learned Single Judge, wherein it is stated as under: “5. Thereafter, on 05-11-1992 through the Official Memorandum the said lands to the extent of 173 Acres 29 Guntas were handed over to the Respondent Society including the land in Sy.No.62/2 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 of Kodigehalli Village. Immediately thereafter the said fact has been entered in the revenue records and name of the Society was mentioned in the RTC of the Sy.No.62/2 both in the column of Kathedar and Anubhavadar. Therefore the Respondent No.4 Society has become the absolute owner of the land in question and the Petitioners herein have no kind of right, title and interest in the said lands. 6. As far as the compensation is concerned the erstwhile landlords have agreed for compensation by consent award and the said amount has been paid. Hence the landlords are not entitled for any other compensation than the agreed one. But in the present case the erstwhile landlords have taken more than the award amount from the Society. Therefore their allegations in the petition that they have not received the compensation and etc., at this length of time have no meanings and they have no right to come before this hon'ble court with the said plea. 7. Further the contentions raised by the Petitioners in this writ petition that G.V.K.Rao Committee appointed by the Government for statutory enquiry under Section 64 of KCS act and Rules and also the applicable of H.M.T Housing Co- Operative Society decision on the Respondent Society is concerned it is necessary to state the said issue has already been considered by this hon'ble - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 court in various writ petitions and writ appeals and after detail argument and hearing it has been decided that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.M.T. case has no application to the Respondent Society on the main ground that the Respondent Society was not at all a party to the said case. Further it has been noticed that even under the G.V.K.Rao Report the Respondent Society was not block listed and as far as allegations are concerned they remained as allegations only and no documentary evidence has been produced. 8. It is submitted that the Respondent Society has already obtained the approved layout plan from the BDA and also formed the layout. Further it has allotted and executed the sites formed in the land in question to various members. Therefore filing of the writ petition at this stage by the Petitioners is nothing but threatening the Society and its members and to make an illegal gain. True copy of the Work Order issued by the BDA dated 04-03-2010 and also Layout Plan are produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE-R2 & R3. True copy of the list of members to whom the sites have been allotted in the present land in question is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE-R4. 9. It is submitted that the Petitioners herein have claimed that they are the legal heirs of late Munishamappa S/o Nallayya who was the original - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 owner of the land measuring 2 acres 30 guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab) in Sy.No.62/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Further they have claimed the right, title and interest by virtue of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.417/1985 itself. However, they have also admitted that the land in question has been acquired by the State for the benefit of the Respondent No.4 Society and general award came to be passed. 10. It is necessary to state that the petitioners in the writ petition have also stated that earlier they have challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.9673-675/1022 and W.P.No.23467/2011 before this hon'ble court and the said writ petitions came to be dismissed on merits. 11. However, even after dismissal of the writ petitions, once again the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking n declaration that the acquisition proceedings have been lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act-2013 (in short Act 2013) as the possession of the land in question has not been taken and award was not passed in time. 12. It is submitted that in the first instance the petitioners herein have approached this hon'ble court in the year 2016 seeking declaration that the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 acquisition has been lapsed after lapse of 30 years invoking the provision i.e., Section 24 (2) of the Act 2013 that too after dismissal of the writ petition on earlier occasion. Therefore the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.” 11. In support of the averments, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also drawn our attention to the layout plan as approved by the Town Planning Authority at page No.327 of the paper book. He also states that, the residential layout plan clearly depicts Sy.No.62/2. He has also drawn our attention to Annexure-R4, which shows the sites allotted and registered by the respondent No.4- Society in Sy.No.62/2 to various persons. Hence, it is his submission that it would be incorrect for the learned counsel for the appellants to say that, they are in possession of the land. He states that, the compensation having been deposited in the Treasury, it is for the appellants to seek the refund from the Treasury by following due process. According to him, the facts that the compensation has been deposited in the Treasury and the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 possession of lands has been taken would meet the requirement of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). He seeks dismissal of the appeal. 12. Learned AGA also highlights the fact that the petitions filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge are abuse of process of law having initially challenged the acquisition and having filed petition much after enactment of the new Act. They approached the learned Single Judge on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. It is her submission that, such a ground, in the facts of this case, is clearly not available to the appellants when a layout plan has been approved by the Planning Authority in respect of the acquired land in the year 2010. That apart it is her submission that, the appellants are precluded from filing a further petition when they have not succeeded in the initial petition challenging the acquisition proceedings in the year 2011. It is not a case where - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 possession has been taken and compensation amount has not been deposited. 13. On the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants in the rejoinder is that, no evidence has been placed by the respondents to show that the compensation has been deposited in the Treasury. That apart, no piece of paper has been filed to show that the possession has been taken as per law. In the absence of such evidence, surely both the factums cannot be said to have been proved and the acquisition proceedings have been lapsed. Analysis: 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the view that, the learned Single Judge has, as in paragraphs No.7 to 12 of the impugned order, rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. The fact that the layout - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 plan has been approved, relinquishment deed has been executed in favour Bengaluru Development Authority for creating public amenities and that plots have been carved out and allotted to the members of respondent No.4- Society and also the fact that plots with regard to same survey number of the appellants have been allotted to the members, would clearly depict that the possession of the land has been taken and it is also the case of the respondents that the compensation has been deposited in the Treasury. This stand needs to be accepted and cannot be discarded and surely proves that the compensation having deposited in the Treasury is in accordance with the requirements of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). And also the possession of the land has been taken. Both the tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court being satisfied, the prayer as sought by the appellants that the acquisition has lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, cannot be accepted. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:13070-DB WA No. 1241 of 2023 14.1. Insofar as the plea of learned counsel for the appellants that no notice has been issued about the deposit of the compensation is concerned, the case of the respondents is that, the notices were sent to the predecessors of the appellants, who did not care to take the compensation, cannot be overlooked. We are of the view that, the present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge lacks merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. 15. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33