This is an oral order where the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution and failure to comply with office objections despite multiple adjournments. The petitioners were not represented.
The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12909 WP No. 102893 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 102893 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
KALINGAPPA NIJALINGAPPA HUDED SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S,
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. OMKAR.L.DESAI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12909 WP No. 102893 of 2024
AND:
…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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called, the petitioners are not represented. When the matter 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 04.06.2024, on that day, three weeks time was granted to comply with the objections raised by the Registry. Again the petition was listed on 20.08.2024, on that day, finally two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with.
The petition is listed today for orders regarding noncompliance of office objections for the third time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the petition is filed on 02.04.2024. Now we are in the month of September 2024. The petition is pending for almost five months. The petitioners have not respected the Court order. As already noted above, when the matter is called, the petitioners are not represented. It appears that the petitioners are not diligent 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.: 64
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution.
BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA JAKATI AND ORS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT-III
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
