RANA JAGA vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R.V.RAVEL — 156/2008
Case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 018. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th April 2026.
LAR - LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE CASE
CNR: GJJM030028522017
Filing Number
156/2008
Filing Date
18-11-2017
Registration No
156/2008
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)
RANA JAGA
Adv. J.A.VYAS
Respondent(s)
THE 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. No. 156/2008 The court dismissed petitioner Rana Jaga's land acquisition reference for default under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for reconsideration with directions for both 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 submit any evidence in support of the claim. The court found the petitioner had breached their undertaking given to the High Court and had no alternative but to dismiss the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: L.A.R. No. 156/2008 The court dismissed petitioner Rana Jaga's land acquisition reference for default under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for reconsideration with directions for both 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 submit any evidence in support of the claim. The court found the petitioner had breached their undertaking given to the High Court and had no alternative but to dismiss the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts