Shankrappa Ramappa Kakaraddi vs The S.L.A.O. Malaprabha and Ghataprabha Project No.3 Bagalkot Advocate - Special Government counsel — 1151/2018

Case under Land Acquisition Act Section U/Sec 64(1). Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.

L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases

CNR: KABK010031682018

ARGUMENTS

Next Hearing

23rd March 2026

Filing Number

1151/2018

Filing Date

12-09-2018

Registration No

1151/2018

Registration Date

12-09-2018

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT

Judge

1567-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot

Acts & Sections

LAND ACQUISITION ACT Section U/Sec 64(1)

Petitioner(s)

Shankrappa Ramappa Kakaraddi

Adv. B D Patil

Respondent(s)

The S.L.A.O. Malaprabha and Ghataprabha Project No.3 Bagalkot Advocate - Special Government counsel

Executive Engineer KNN,MBC Division No.1 Gaddanakeri Camp Bagalkot

Adv. K M Purohith

Hearing History

Judge: 1567-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot

06-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

21-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

05-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

13-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

05-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

28-11-2025
Deposition
08-12-2025
Deposition

Summary In LAC No. 1151/2018, the court examined a land dispute regarding property in Hoolagere village. The court found that the respondent's witness (PW-1) provided false testimony regarding the land's features, water sources, and the neem trees on the property. The court accepted the petitioner's arguments that certain legal provisions (NP-6, NP-7) do not apply to the disputed land and directed the local administration to conduct a proper survey and provide appropriate compensation to the petitioner for the damaged property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In LAC No. 1151/2018, the court examined a land dispute regarding property in Hoolagere village. The court found that the respondent's witness (PW-1) provided false testimony regarding the land's features, water sources, and the neem trees on the property. The court accepted the petitioner's arguments that certain legal provisions (NP-6, NP-7) do not apply to the disputed land and directed the local administration to conduct a proper survey and provide appropriate compensation to the petitioner for the damaged property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case