Dundayya S/o Mallayya Mathapati vs The Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Commissioner Jamkhandi Advocate - AGP — 9/2016
Case under U Sec 18 of La Act Section 18(1). Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases
CNR: KABK700004052016
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
Filing Number
9/2016
Filing Date
23-08-2016
Registration No
9/2016
Registration Date
24-08-2016
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
Judge
118-ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dundayya S/o Mallayya Mathapati
Adv. U.S.SHINDHUR
Shrishail S/o Mallappa alias Mallayya Mathapati
Adv. U.S.SHINDHUR
Gurayya S/o Mallappa alias Mallayya mathapati
Adv. U.S.SHINDHUR
Annayya S/o Mallappa alias Mallayya Mathapti
Sadasiv alias Sadappa Adrashyappa Patil
Respondent(s)
The Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Commissioner Jamkhandi Advocate - AGP
The Executive Engineer , Minor Irrigation Department Bijapur
The State Government R/by Deputy commissioner Bagalkot
Hearing History
Judge: 118-ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 23-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 13-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 02-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary: In case LAC.9/2016, a witness (PW-4) was examined on 05-11-2025 regarding the valuation of a well (Survey No. 511/2) in Gelti village. The witness testified that no court directive was issued for property valuation, and acknowledged not visiting the site or obtaining the land owner's signature. Cross-examination arguments by the AGP (Advocate General) challenging the valuation report's credibility were noted. No re-examination was conducted, and the court proceeded accordingly with the witness's statement recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In case LAC.9/2016, a witness (PW-4) was examined on 05-11-2025 regarding the valuation of a well (Survey No. 511/2) in Gelti village. The witness testified that no court directive was issued for property valuation, and acknowledged not visiting the site or obtaining the land owner's signature. Cross-examination arguments by the AGP (Advocate General) challenging the valuation report's credibility were noted. No re-examination was conducted, and the court proceeded accordingly with the witness's statement recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts