DEVAYAT VEJABHAI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - K.H.BHATT — 167/2008
Case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 018. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th April 2026.
LAR - LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE CASE
CNR: GJJM030028742017
Filing Number
167/2008
Filing Date
18-11-2017
Registration No
167/2008
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)
DEVAYAT VEJABHAI
Adv. J.A.VYAS
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - K.H.BHATT
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
Summary of L.A.R. No. 167/2008 The Primary Sr. Civil Court, Lalpur dismissed petitioner Devayat Vejabhai's Land Acquisition Reference challenging an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for fresh hearing with directions to complete proceedings within six months, the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear on multiple scheduled dates (09.02.2026, 03.03.2026, 16.03.2026, and 13.04.2026) and submitted no evidence, thereby breaching the undertaking given to the High Court. The court dismissed the application for default 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
Summary of L.A.R. No. 167/2008 The Primary Sr. Civil Court, Lalpur dismissed petitioner Devayat Vejabhai's Land Acquisition Reference challenging an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. After the Gujarat High Court remanded the case for fresh hearing with directions to complete proceedings within six months, the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear on multiple scheduled dates (09.02.2026, 03.03.2026, 16.03.2026, and 13.04.2026) and submitted no evidence, thereby breaching the undertaking given to the High Court. The court dismissed the application for default 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