The Divisional Controller, vs Smt Minaz W/O Abdul Kalam Azad Buddebai

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 12, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1276687

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1276687
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Addl. Registrar Judicial
Decided On: Nov 12, 2025
Case Number: WA/100307/2024
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Divisional Controller,

Respondent

Smt Minaz W/O Abdul Kalam Azad Buddebai

Excerpt

in the high court of karnataka at dharwad[the divisional controller, vs. smt minaz w/o abdul kalam azad buddebai and others] 12.11.2025 ( physical hearing) coram: addl. registrar judicialoral ordercase is called out. the learned counsel for the appellant is absent. as per order dated : 27.10.2025, this case is listed on this day for dismissal for non-compliance of the office objections. on perusal of the records, it is seen that, this case is first listed for compliance of office objections on 26.11.2024. but, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and inspite of specific order on 27.10.2025 that, if the office objections are not complied, the matter would be listed for dismissal on this day, the office objections are not complied. the conduct of the appellant shows that, the appellant is not interested in proceeding with the matter. as per chapter-xii, rule 14(2) of karnataka high court rules, the registrar has the power to pass a peremptory order of dismissal, if the compliance is not made within the time extended. as per chapter-xii, rule 14(3) of karnataka high court rules,the party is entitled to apply for setting aside the peremptory orderby making an application to the court having assignment of the subject. -2- hence, the following order is passed by exercising the powers as per chapter-xii, rule 14(2) of karnataka high court rules.orderthe writ appeal filed by the appellant under sec.4 of the karnataka high court act is dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections, with no order as to costs. the appellant is entitled to apply for setting aside this order by making an application to the court having assignment of the subject as per chapter-xii, rule 14(3) of karnataka high court rules, 1959. sd/- (jerald rudolph mendonca) addl. registrar (judicial) & nomiated registrar list no.: 56 sl no.: 58

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
[THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, VS. SMT MINAZ W/O ABDUL KALAM AZAD BUDDEBAI AND OTHERS] 12.11.2025 ( PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: ADDL. REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

ORAL ORDER

Case is called out. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is absent. As per Order dated : 27.10.2025, this case is listed on this day for dismissal for non-compliance of the office objections. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, this case is first listed for compliance of office objections on 26.11.2024. But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and inspite of specific order on 27.10.2025 that, if the office objections are not complied, the matter would be listed for dismissal on this day, the office objections are not complied. The conduct of the Appellant shows that, the Appellant is not interested in proceeding with the matter. As per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(2) of Karnataka High Court Rules, the Registrar has the power to pass a peremptory order of dismissal, if the compliance is not made within the time extended. As per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(3) of Karnataka High Court Rules,

the party is entitled to apply for setting aside the peremptory order

by making an application to the Court having assignment of the subject. -2- Hence, the following Order is passed by exercising the powers as per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(2) of Karnataka High Court Rules.

ORDER

The Writ appeal filed by the Appellant under Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections, with no order as to costs. The Appellant is entitled to apply for setting aside this Order by making an application to the Court having assignment of the subject as per Chapter-XII, Rule 14(3) of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959. Sd/- (JERALD RUDOLPH MENDONCA) ADDL. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) & NOMIATED REGISTRAR List No.: 56 Sl No.: 58

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties The Divisional Controller, vs Smt Minaz W/O Abdul Kalam Azad ... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Addl. Registrar Judicial