MOHANBHAI VELJIBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R.V.RAVEL — 141/2008
Case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 018. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th April 2026.
LAR - LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE CASE
CNR: GJJM030028222017
Filing Number
141/2008
Filing Date
18-11-2017
Registration No
141/2008
Registration Date
23-07-2008
Court
TALUKA COURT, LALPUR
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHANBHAI VELJIBHAI
Adv. J A VYAS
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R.V.RAVEL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
| 03-03-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
| 17-02-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
| 09-02-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: L.A.R. 141/2008 The court dismissed petitioner Mohanbhai Veljibhai's land acquisition reference against the State of Gujarat for default. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for reconsideration with directions for parties to submit evidence within four weeks, the petitioner failed to appear on multiple hearing dates (03.03.2026, 16.03.2026, and the final hearing on 13.04.2026) without adjournment requests or evidence submission, breaching their undertaking to the High Court. The court dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC, with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: L.A.R. 141/2008 The court dismissed petitioner Mohanbhai Veljibhai's land acquisition reference against the State of Gujarat for default. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for reconsideration with directions for parties to submit evidence within four weeks, the petitioner failed to appear on multiple hearing dates (03.03.2026, 16.03.2026, and the final hearing on 13.04.2026) without adjournment requests or evidence submission, breaching their undertaking to the High Court. The court dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC, with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts