- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49119 WP No. 12168 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12168 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEGHA DILIP D/O LATE MALLAPPA W/O DILIP AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. MYTHRI D/O LATE SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. SMT CHAMPA W/O LATE SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. P.C.GURUMALLAPPA S/O DODDA CHENNA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT P.G.PALYA VILLAGE AND POST, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH C M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49119 WP No. 12168 of 2021 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL TOWN-571 440, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 3. THASILDHAR KOLLEGAL TOWN, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 4. SRI GURUSWAMY S/O LATE BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 5. SMT. NIRMALA W/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT P.G.PALYA VILLAGE, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) *** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN REV.PETITION NO.66/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN REV.PETITION NO.66/2016 DATED 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49119 WP No. 12168 of 2021 ORAL ORDER It is noticed that petition came to be dismissed on an earlier occasion taking note that office objections were not complied. Such order was passed on 07.03.2023. 2. Subsequently, I.A.-1/2023 was filed and the application for recalling the order of dismissal was allowed and the matter was restored on payment of cost. 3. However, it is noticed that still there are eight office objections and despite opportunities provided, the said office objections have not been complied with. 4. When the matter is called out, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Taking note of the proceedings, as the petitioners are not showing diligence in conducting the proceedings and office objections have not been complied, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP