Karnataka High Court
WP/103768/2024 of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, on 5 October 2026
2024:KHC-D:13956 WP No. 103768 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103768 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., MBC-1,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 103768 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
MBC-1, GADDANAKERI CAMP,
BAGALAKOT-587 313.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M.TONNE., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT-III,
SECTOR NO. 60, BAGALKOT-587 101.
2.
BASAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
3.
LAKKAVVA W/O. KADAPPA BANGYAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
4.
LAKKAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5.
LAXMAN S/O. MALLAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
6.
RAMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
7.
SANGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
8.
LAXMAVVA W/O. PARAPPA MIRJI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
9.
SHRISHAIL S/O. MALLAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
10.
SUMITRA W/O. FAKIRAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
11.
HANAMAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
12.
MAHADEVA S/O. YAMANAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
13.
KAREPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA AKKIMARADI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
14.
BHEEMAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GANI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
15.
NAGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GANI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
16.
ARJUN S/O. KRISHNAPPA DASAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANJANAGI, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 313.
…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 DISMISSAL, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
When the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 10.09.2024, on that day, finally two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which, the office was directed to list this matter under the caption ‘for dismissal of petition for non-compliance of office objections’ on 26.09.2024. The petition is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite granting time, the office objections are not complied. The petitioner has not respected the Court order. As already noted above, when the case is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not interested 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 MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30