LAXMAN Vs. REHABILITATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appear for the appellants. Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 are present. Respondent Nos.1 and 7 have not appeared despite service of notice. Appellants have not taken steps to serve the notice of this appeal on respondent No.5, despite ample opportunities since 2015.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. It is submitted that the appellants have approached this Court in second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Trial court and the first appellate Court. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 had allotted a site to the father of respondent No.2 to 4 and 6 on compassionate grounds regarding the submergence of the lands belonging to them. Similarly the appellant was also allotted a site by the respondent No.1. The documents regarding the allotment to the sites to the appellant were corrected by themselves and there was no records to show that the site which has been allotted to the father of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6 was really allotted to the appellant. Therefore, the Trial court as well as first appellate Court have rejected the claim of the appellant and as such the appellant has approached this Court.

(3.) There being no submission by learned counsel for the appellant and since the matter is of the year 2015 and also that the appellant has not taken steps to serve the notice of this appeal on respondent No.5, there is no need to continue with this appeal. In view of the factual circumstances narrated by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6, no substantial question of law also emanate from the records. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.