Dismissed

Mr Vincent Richard Pinto v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021WP/41649/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing on writ petitions challenging land acquisition, the Holding Court noted non-compliance of office objections and absence of petitioners. Observing lack of interest in prosecuting the petitions, the Court dismissed them for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to comply with office objections and absence of party.

Mr Vincent Richard Pinto Vs the Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS.41649-41653/2017 (LA - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr.Vincent Richard Pinto S/o late J.S.Pinto Hebbasale Aged about 63 years

¶9

Ms. Miliana Pinto W/o late A.J.Pinto Hebbasale Aged about 62 years

¶10

Mr.Jeraid Pinto S/o late J.S.Pinto Aged about 61 years

¶11

Mr.Gilbert Pinto S/o late J.S.Pinto Aged about 63 years

¶12

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are Represented by their GPA Holder Mr.James Roy Pinto – petitioner No.5

¶13

Sri.James Roy Pinto S/o Jerald Pinto Aged about 30 years

¶14

All are residing at, Hebbasale village and post

¶15

¶16

Kasaba Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.

¶17

... Petitioners

¶18

(By Sri.Prakash G.R, Advocate)

¶19

AND:

¶20

The Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶21

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Government of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶22

The Managing Director Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha No.1, 4^th Floor, Coffee Board Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶23

The Deputy Commissioner Hassan District, Hassan – 573 201

¶24

The Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha Yettinahole Sub-Division No.1, Sakleshpur – 573 134.

¶25

…Respondents

¶26

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to follow the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

¶27

¶28

in acquiring the lands in Sy. Nos.243, 244, 245, 246, 258, 372/1 and 404 of Hebbasale Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakleshpur Taluk, belonging to the petitioners for Yettinahole Project and not to violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶29

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing , this day, the Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

It is noticed that office objections have not been complied with despite opportunities being given on 07.08.2018, 23.10.2018, 23.01.2019 and 15.04.2019. On 17.09.2019, two week’s time was granted for compliance of office objections and it was ordered that failing which, the petitions would stand dismissed.

¶32

Despite the order dated 17.09.2019, the office objections have not been complied with and there is no representation by the petitioners when the matter is called out.

¶33

¶34