High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Dodda Mahadeva vs The Special Land Acquisition … on 29 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Dodda Mahadeva vs The Special Land Acquisition … on 29 May, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
..i..

IN THE HIGH cotklrr or KAR1~IA'I'AKA,   

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 0;; MAY, «:96?  if  3 4 "  

BEFORE

THE H0N*BLE MR.JUST1C35§_ 12sg~.MV1\z1Q'1i1ANT%?:§EVfui1):yf% I %

M.F.A. Nof1035/_2:_iO°€¥L8(L§LC)." «-- 

BETWEEN

1 SM DODD.Ah1A'_HAL3EVA
AGED 54_.'*f_EA§*<'S._. ..    
SON OF Lm-12: "M';s.DA£5--1«1'@_C:~iiKE:aNNA
RESIDING NEAR A LADAMANE 
NAGU"V'AN2iHAL;L§-- Rf-_}A§,  "

KEISARE. B'.-'§DA_V"AN  'MffSO*RE CITY-56000 1.

2 SR: CHI._KK€&MA_HA1}'EVjA @ MAHADEVA
5-$3.30 50* YEARS ' "
..s.~':~'oN*oF LA'1'Et. MADAIAH {gig cH§KKANNA
 '=§'v )

 J.'mV§3'»3:5Ec1AL LAND ACQUISETION OFFECER
"msoas URBAN DEVELQPMENT AUTHORIW

  f ~JA;~:s§ BA: Rom, MYSORE1--0L

 RESPGNSENT

'1"?--¥ES I*¢E§5°}§ FILEB UNDER SECEEGN 54(1) OF THE
£-é%§*%éE.} ;§{';€3i._§_Ef§§?i'if}N ACT, PRAYING TO SET AS¥§E THE

M



0? THE} I ADDLCIVIL JUD{}E(SR.D"v"N), MYSORE AND.  _

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ommzs, '_I_'-ir3VI.i S'4'  _

THE COURT MADE THE P'OLLOW¥NG:

This appeal is filed on 22. 1§'2Q§:3A' 
obgectiens were notified for C{;'1'.ri%})1ia1':VLCé:  
13.5.2008

. Even as on 1 9…A18.2«:)dVs§’ ._gbje’:A<:'tVit)ziJs; were
not compiied with and was listed

befere this weeks time

was {ma-lily Tfiefégafiér too, ofiice objections

were not C(§EI1§]§€d'h€flC€, the matter was Q1106

befofé' t11i.:s-«'co2,1x*t on 15.10.2008 when four

Vwfé:ekS*' wtiI:'3§_3'%é2é7'a;§ —zyantcd fmaily. flzereafiexwmds, the

cetéizgéi difii'Vié£}§T:;c0mpiy with objections withiI1 the fime

,_':s;1:ipuI3.'it3£;1" and herica, the matter was iisted yet another

11.2.2009 whence this Court granted 3 Week's

on payment of cost; of 383.308/~. The oifice

C535" 'L1';

:.~:>’n3’e% as

directed. fig?

-3-

2. From what is stated supra, it is patent that the

appellant is an indolant Iiijgant and has evinced’.-~.r;10

interest to have his appeal heard and disposcgi “..
merits. More over, it is not kI10vm as to how M
itself is majmzahlable since that »Ij'{§i:S(‘:Ad

by the registry. Be that as i%:_may,a ‘négligenfiiz-,’ i11acti£§fi~ ”

and lack of bonafides is aitribufifile tovhthr.-:_ S

The appeal is, accozifigingiyf