Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7632 (KAR)

ASHOK S/O VISHWASRAO PATIL v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

MFA/102467/2022 · 2025-01-29

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102467 OF 2022 (LAC) BETWEEN 1 . ASHOK S/O VISHWASRAO PATIL AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANGASULI 591234, TQ. ATHANI, NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2 . SMT. PUSHPATAI W/O ASHOKRAO PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. SMT. RASHIKA W/O DHANANJAY PAWAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGASULI 591234. TQ. ATHANI NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3 . SMT. SHWETA W/O SANTOSH PATIL AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGASULI 591234., TQ. ATHANI, NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4 . SMT. SNEHAL W/O ATYAJEET PATIL AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGASULI 591234, TQ. ATHANI, NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5 . SMT. SHRUTIKA W/O SATYAJEEP GODASE AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGASULI 591234, TQ. ATHANI, NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6 . ABHAYSINGH S/O ASHOK PATIL AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2 R/O. MANGASULI 591234, TQ. ATHANI, NOW KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANTS (By SRI : SAURABH A SONDUR) AND 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HIPPARAGI PROJECT, ATHANI 591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2 . KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HBC DIVISION, ATHANI 591304, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS * * * * * This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed Under Sec.74(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, against the Judgment and Award dated 25.10.2018 passed in LAC No.263/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Athani. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Hon’ble Court passed the following; O R D E R Three weeks time is granted for compliance of office objections, failing which, the appeal stands dismissed without reference to the Court. SD/- JUDGE 3 //COPY// As per the endorsement made in the order sheet dated 29.03.2025, the Advocate for appellant has not complied with the office objections. Hence, this MFA No. 102467 of 2022 stands dismissed as per the Court order dated 29.01.2025. BY ORDER OF THE COURT SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. T By: vg C By: sdp