- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1486 RSA No. 1716 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2023 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H.R. JAYAMMA W/O LATE OBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SMT. SUJATHA D/O LATE OBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT EDIGARA BEEDI HAROHALLI TOWN, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 112 …APPELLANTS [BY SRI AVINASH P., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SHRI KRISHNA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SIDDRAJU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SOMRAJU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1486 RSA No. 1716 of 2023 ALL ARE RESIDING AT HULISIDDEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 112. 4. 5. SMT. ERAMMA, W/O HULLISIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 112. SMT. HUCHAMMA W/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A HAROHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112. 6. SMT. SUNITHA PRABHU W/O T PRABHU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO 288, 8TH BLOCK 38TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE 560 041. 7. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. 8. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER RAMANAGARAM RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT 562 159. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.5051/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.102/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1486 RSA No. 1716 of 2023 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for IX time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 100