Shivaningappa S/o Gangappa Jigajinni vs The SLAO BTDA Bagalkot Advocate - R.M Kulkarni — 1235/2021
Case under Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 Section U/s.64(1). Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases
CNR: KABK010018992021
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
1235/2021
Filing Date
04-03-2021
Registration No
1235/2021
Registration Date
04-03-2021
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT
Judge
1567-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivaningappa S/o Gangappa Jigajinni
Adv. M.M.HANDI
Respondent(s)
The SLAO BTDA Bagalkot Advocate - R.M Kulkarni
The Deputy Commissioner Bagalkot
Hearing History
Judge: 1567-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 21-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 16-12-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
| 09-12-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Land Acquisition Case (LAC No. 1235/2021) heard on 19.11.2025 in Karnataka. The court examined witness testimony (PW-1) and heard arguments from the claimant, government counsel, and other defendants regarding disputed property claims and applicability of land acquisition laws. The court found that the defendants' arguments challenging jurisdiction and applicability of regulations were not sustainable and partially allowed the claimant's contentions regarding the property location and government procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Land Acquisition Case (LAC No. 1235/2021) heard on 19.11.2025 in Karnataka. The court examined witness testimony (PW-1) and heard arguments from the claimant, government counsel, and other defendants regarding disputed property claims and applicability of land acquisition laws. The court found that the defendants' arguments challenging jurisdiction and applicability of regulations were not sustainable and partially allowed the claimant's contentions regarding the property location and government procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts