Vasant S/o Sidram Lavate vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.P.III Navanagar Bagalkot — 5767/2021
Case under U/sec 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in L.a.r.r. Act 2013. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases
CNR: KABK730063482021
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
5767/2021
Filing Date
27-11-2021
Registration No
5767/2021
Registration Date
27-11-2021
Court
I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI
Judge
1171-I Addl. D and S Judge Bagalkot sitting Jamkhandi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vasant S/o Sidram Lavate
Adv. U.S.Sindhur
Respondent(s)
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.P.III Navanagar Bagalkot
The Executive Engineer, KNNL Athani
The The State of Karnataka R/by Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot
Hearing History
Judge: 1171-I Addl. D and S Judge Bagalkot sitting Jamkhandi
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 28-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 27-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 07-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 04-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The court rejected the witness's (P.W.1) testimony and found it to be unreliable and based on false claims regarding the acquired lands' classification, compensation adequacy, and procedural compliance. The first respondent (AGP) presented counter-arguments that the lands were dry lands (not irrigated), compensation was reasonable, and proper notice procedures were followed. The court found the witness's assertions about irrigated land status, crop cultivation, and land valuation to lack documentary evidence and therefore accepted the respondent's position. No remand for further examination was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The court rejected the witness's (P.W.1) testimony and found it to be unreliable and based on false claims regarding the acquired lands' classification, compensation adequacy, and procedural compliance. The first respondent (AGP) presented counter-arguments that the lands were dry lands (not irrigated), compensation was reasonable, and proper notice procedures were followed. The court found the witness's assertions about irrigated land status, crop cultivation, and land valuation to lack documentary evidence and therefore accepted the respondent's position. No remand for further examination was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
More from this court
I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI All courts →Explore other courts