Karnataka High Court
MSA/100109/2014 of BARAMAPPA S/O DEVAPPA PUJAR Vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (M I DIVN), DHARWAD on 7 September 2026
No. 100109 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100109/2014 (LA-) BETWEEN: BARAMAPPA S/O DEVAPPA PUJAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAHATTI VILLAGE,
MSA No. 100109 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100109/2014 (LA-)
BETWEEN:
BARAMAPPA S/O DEVAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI VILLAGE, SHIRAHATTI TALUKA, GADAG DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD S PAWAR AND SRI. S V PAWAR ADV. FOR
APPELLANTS-ABSENT;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B HALLI.,ADVOCATE (NOC NOT OBTAINED)- ABSENT)
AND:
1.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
(M I, DIVN), DHARWAD.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
(LAO) GADAG.
3.
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GADAG.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MSA IS FILED U/SEC. 54(2) OF LA ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD: 02.08.2014 PASSED IN LAC APPEAL
NO.1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 27.09.2006 PASSED
IN LAC NO.107/2002, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
AND CJM, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
U/SEC.18 OF LA ACT.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
MSA No. 100109 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
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.
ORDER
The matter was called in the morning session. There was no representation for the appellant and hence, the matter was passed over. The office objections are not complied though sufficient opportunities were granted. Even during second call, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/- JUDGE
YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5