: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA MSA. 100031/2016(LAC) BETWEEN THE DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER, KARNATAKA AND GOA CIRCLE, K.KAMRAJ ROAD, BENGALURU-560042 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADV.) AND 1. SATU S/O VENKANNA NAYAK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1A) SMT.DEVAMMA W/O SATU NAIK, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 1B) SMT.RADHA W/O MAHABALESHWAR NAYAK, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 1C) SMT.MALA W/O RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VANDIGE, TQ: ANKOLA. 1D) SMT.BHAVANI W/O BEERANNA NAYAK, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HANCHALLI, TQ: KUMTA. : 2 : 1E) SMT.BEERAMMA D/O SATU NAYAK, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 1F) SMT.VENKAMMA S/O MANESHWAR NAYAK, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ADLUR, POST: AGSUR, TQ: ANKOLA. 2. VENKATESH S/O HAMMANNA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 3. RAJESH S/O HAMMANNA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.REPRESENTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR. STATE OF KARNATAKA. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R4) THIS MSA IS FILED U/SEC. 54(2) OF LA ACT 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD: 18.07.2014 PASSED IN LACA NO.72/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 19.09.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.47/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE APPLICATION FILED U/SEC. 18(1) OF LA ACT. : 3 : THIS MSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - - JUDGMENT I.A.1/2016 is allowed. Delay condoned. With the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing, as the case appeared to be covered by earlier judgments of this Court. 2. Heard the learned advocates and perused the record. 3. By paying a nominal court fee the appeal was presented. Despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the deficit court fee has not been remitted. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant conceded that this appeal is identical to M.S.A.100084/2015, which was heard and dismissed by a judgment dated 5.7.2016. 5. In view of the above, following the said judgment and for the reasons stated therein, this appeal being liable to be dismissed, the same is accordingly dismissed. : 4 : However, the appellant shall remit the deficit court fee, within a period of eight weeks. Till the deficit court fee is paid, the award shall not be drawn. If the deficit court fee is not made good within the period allowed, the same shall be liable to be recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks. In view of disposal of appeal on merits, I.A.2/2016 does not survive for consideration. Sd/-] JUDGE Sub/.