( 1 ) BY consent of the Advocates appearing on either side, the writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner Marikullamma has filed this writ petition for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 28,833-75 with interest and allowances being the compensation for the acquisition of the land possessed by her in S. No. 101 of Peenya Village, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. ( 3 ) THE brief facts that gave rise to this writ petition are as follows : petitioner's father late Naga alias Nagappa was the holder of a village office and in that capacity he held 4 acres 21 guntas of land in S. No. 101 of Peenya village of Bangalore North Taluk. He left behind the petitioner and her brother one Munihanumappa. After his death, the petitioner and the legal representatives of Munihanumappa, her brother (since deceased) applied, to the assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, for regrant of the above land under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. The Assistant commissioner, by his order dated 18-4-1974 regranted an extent of 2 acres 101/2 guntas to the petitioner and similar extent was regranted to the other claimants. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the parties went up in appeal to the court of the District Judge. The petitioner lodged M. A. No. 198/1974 and the legal representatives of her brother preferred M. A. No. 173/1974. Both the appeals were dismissed by the III Additional District Judge as per his order dated 18-10-1978 at Annexure-A confirming the order passed by the Assistant commissioner regarding the regrant. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the application for regrant before the Assistant Commissioner, the state Government acquired the land and the petitioner was awarded a compensation of Rs. 46,833-73 in respect of her 2 acres 101/2 guntas of land as per the award Annexure-B dated 30th april, 1975 with a direction that the petitioner would be paid, the compensation amount only after the case pending in the civil court in M. A No. 173 of 1974 was decided. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the interest, being the compensation for one acre out of 2 acres 101/2 guntas. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the interest, being the compensation for one acre out of 2 acres 101/2 guntas. After the appeal had been disposed of as per Annexure-A, the petitioner made a representation on 21-3-1979 as per Annexure-C requesting the 1st respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer for payment of the balance of the compensation amount. No action was taken, by the 1st respondent in this regard. Thereupon, the petitioner caused a lawyer's notice dated 21-2-1980 (Annexure-D) to be issued calling upon the respondents to make payment of the money awarded as compensation and since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition. ( 5 ) EMERGENT notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents on 17-6-1980. On 4-8-1980, the government Advocate was directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2 and produce the records at the time of preliminary hearing, relating to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. On 20-8-1980. the case was adjourned at the request of the High Court Government Pleader and directed to be posted finally during the next week for hearing. Again on 27-8-1980, at the request of the High Court Government Pleader who sought for 10 days time finally, the matter was adjourned and directed to be posted after 10 days as a last chance. Again on 8-9-1983, at the request of Shri Venkatachalaiah learned High Court Government Pleader, the cage was adjourned and posted to this day with the specific understanding that the matter would be taken up finally. ( 6 ) TODAY Shri V. C. Sabarad, learned High Court Government Pleader, has submitted that he is representing the respondents in the place of Shri Venkatachalaiah and re wants further time to secure the records. The adjournment is strongly opposed by Shri S. Vijayashankar, the learned advocate for the petitioner. ( 7 ) SEVERAL adjournments were granted on the request of the High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents although the Advocate for the petitioner was pressing for hearing of the writ Petition. Again on 8-9-1980, on the request of Shri Venkatachalaiah, the learned High court Government Pleader, the case was adjourned and posted to this day with specific understanding that the matter would be taken up finally. Again on 8-9-1980, on the request of Shri Venkatachalaiah, the learned High court Government Pleader, the case was adjourned and posted to this day with specific understanding that the matter would be taken up finally. This day, in the place of Shri venkatachalaiah, Shri V. C. Sabarad, learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that he is entrusted with the case and sought for further time on the same ground as before that the records have not been secured. ( 8 ) THERE has been lot of dislocation of the work in this court on account of the different High court Govt. Pleaders appearing in the same case on different dates of hearing as the new-comer would not know the proceedings of the previous dates in a particular case and ask for adjournment on the same ground as before. In order to avoid such dislocation of the work, this court has been impressing upon the High Court Government Pleaders that there should be some continuity in the appearance in each case so that the cases may be disposed of speedily. In that view, this Court has been noting in each case the name of the High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Government. Thus a note was made in the order sheet of 8-9-1980 that the case was adjourned at the request of Shri Venkatachalaiah who represented to the court that he was entrusted with this case. However, today Shri V. C. Sabarad, learned High Court Government pleader submits to the court that he is entrusted with the case file and sought for time on behalf of the respondents on the same ground as before that the records have not been received. If Shri Venkatachalaiah were to appear for the respondents today, certainly he would have found it difficult to ask for further time since the case was adjourned at his request on the last occasion and posted finally to this date for hearing. Since the matter suffered several adjournments at the request of the respondents, I am not inclined to grant further time and hence the matter is taken up for final hearing rejecting the prayer made by Shri Sabarad for further time. ( 9 ) NO statement of objections has been filed in this case. Since the matter suffered several adjournments at the request of the respondents, I am not inclined to grant further time and hence the matter is taken up for final hearing rejecting the prayer made by Shri Sabarad for further time. ( 9 ) NO statement of objections has been filed in this case. It seems to me from the averments made in the writ petition and also the documents produced along with the writ petition, there could not have been any say to be submitted on behalf of the respondents. All that the petitioner asks for in this writ petition is a direction to pay the just amount due to her as awarded by the Special Land acquisition officer in respect of the acquisition of the land belonging to her long back and since the respondents have failed to do so, she has approached this Court for necessary relief. It seems to me in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for the direction sought for. ( 10 ) SHRI S. Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed for the costs of the petition against the 2nd respondent personally on the ground that the second respondent deliberately failed to take any action although the petitioner made a representation to him as per annexure-C D/- 21-31979 and again caused a lawyer's notice dated 21-2-1980 to be issued as per Annexure-D requesting him to pay the amount due to the petitioner, bringing to his notice that there was no impediment for him to pay the amount. It appears to me that this submission of shri vijayashankar is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the rule is issued and made absolute. A writ of mandamus shall issue to both the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 28,833-75 being the compensation amount awarded together with interest and other allowances as per law within two months from the date of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to her costs from the second respondent. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 100/ -.