The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer No.01 UKP Navanagar Bagalkote vs Sidramappa Badakannavar S/o Shivappa Govt And Others — 440/2024
Case under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act Section 76&77. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.
L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases
CNR: KABK010016942024
e-Filing Number
05-04-2024
Filing Number
440/2024
Filing Date
11-07-2024
Registration No
440/2024
Registration Date
11-07-2024
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT
Judge
1181-II Addl District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer No.01 UKP Navanagar Bagalkote
Adv. NIL
Respondent(s)
Sidramappa Badakannavar S/o Shivappa Govt And Others
Parasappa Badakannavar S/o Shivappa
Hearing History
Judge: 1181-II Addl District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 03-01-2026 | NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The II Additional District Judge, Bagalkote declared Sidramappa and Parasappa (opponents) as joint absolute owners of 6 guntas of acquired land at Kadiwal Kallapur village and entitled them to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 1,69,677/- jointly. The court found that the land acquisition officer properly deposited the disputed compensation with the court under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because the two co-owners had individually claimed sole ownership, preventing payment, and they are now willing to receive it jointly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The II Additional District Judge, Bagalkote declared Sidramappa and Parasappa (opponents) as joint absolute owners of 6 guntas of acquired land at Kadiwal Kallapur village and entitled them to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 1,69,677/- jointly. The court found that the land acquisition officer properly deposited the disputed compensation with the court under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because the two co-owners had individually claimed sole ownership, preventing payment, and they are now willing to receive it jointly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts