Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8628 (KAR)

1A. MANJUNATH NAGAPPA DEVADIGA ALIAS MUDIKERI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/104605/2021 · 2025-03-20

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12172 WP No. 104605 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104605 OF 2021 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. NAGAPPA VENKATAPPA DEVADIGA @ MUDIKERI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S, MANJUNATH NAGAPPA DEVADIGA ALIAS MUDIKERI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAIKINI, TAL. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 421. 1B. VENKATARAMAN NAGAPPA DEVADIGA ALIAS MUDIKERI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAIKINI, TAL. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 421. 1C. GANAPATI NAGAPPA DEVADIGA ALIAS MUDIKERI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAIKINI, TAL. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 421. 1D. GOVINDA NAGAPPA DEVADIGA ALIAS MUDIKERI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAIKINI, TAL. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 421. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VIJAY.K.NAIK., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12172 WP No. 104605 of 2021 VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA-581 301. 3. THE TALUKA LAND TRIBUNAL, BHATKAL, R/BY TAHSILDAR, BHATKAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 320. 4. MANGESH SHRIPAD NADKARNI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAIKINI, TAL. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 421. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners either personally or through video conferencing. When the matter is listed before the Court, and is called out, the advocate must be present in the Court. His or her absence may effect the case. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 29.11.2021, on that day, a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12172 WP No. 104605 of 2021 petition was listed before the Court on several dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the petition was listed on 01.07.2024, on that day, two weeks time was granted to rectify the office objections. Despite granting several opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. The petition is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections for the fifth time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite granting sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the petition is filed in the year 2021. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for almost three years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28