DAYA PANCHA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R.V.RAVEL — 142/2008

Case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 018. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th April 2026.

LAR - LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE CASE

CNR: GJJM030028242017

Case disposed

Filing Number

142/2008

Filing Date

18-11-2017

Registration No

142/2008

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

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Section 018

Petitioner(s)

DAYA PANCHA

Adv. J A VYAS

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R.V.RAVEL

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

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

13-04-2026
ORDER

SUMMARY The Primary Senior Civil Court dismissed petitioner Daya Pancha's Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R. No. 142/2008) under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC on 13 April 2026. 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 and 16.03.2026) and did not present on the final hearing date, breaching their undertaking before the High Court. The court found dismissal for default was the only alternative given the petitioner's non-compliance and lack of evidence submission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

10-12-2018
JUDEGEMENT
casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Primary Senior Civil Court dismissed petitioner Daya Pancha's Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R. No. 142/2008) under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC on 13 April 2026. 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 and 16.03.2026) and did not present on the final hearing date, breaching their undertaking before the High Court. The court found dismissal for default was the only alternative given the petitioner's non-compliance and lack of evidence submission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, LALPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case