LAWS(KAR)-1995-8-3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GULBARGA Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR S O SHIVALINGAPPA BALGUNDGI

Decided On August 24, 1995
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GULBARGA Appellant
V/S
CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BALGUNDGI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is posted for orders before us on the office note on cross-objections, to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing cross-objections (I.A.I.) and regarding posting of Cross-appeal along with the main appeal.

(2.) The appeal was filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the decree in L.A.C. No.54 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge at Gulbarga. In the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 26-10-1994 issuing notice and also called for the records. On receipt of the notice, the respondent filed a cross-objection on 3-2-1995 within time. The same was returned with certain office objections. On 12-7-1995, the cross-objection was refiled without payment of full court-fee which was later paid on 26-7-1995.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the appeal came up before the Bench on 8-2-1995. It was directed by the Court to put up along with cross- objections and to post the matter next week. The matter again came up before the Bench on 31-3-1995. The learned Government Advocate and Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned counsel for respondent were heard in part. It was also stated that the respondent had filed a cross-objection. Ultimately, the Court directed the cross-objection to be put up and to post the case on 4-4-1995 to hear further on admission. The matter thereafter came up before the Bench on 14-6-1995 when the Government Advocate and learned Counsel for respondent were heard. The case was adjourned by two days and the fact that the respondent had filed a cross-objection which was returned to cure certain defects was also noted in the order sheet. The matter then came up before the Bench on 10-7-1995. The Court heard the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent who it is stated in the order is served with notice regarding admission. The Court ultimately held that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment and award and dismissed the Appeal.