Afaroja Ayajahmmed Khadamatagar Age 46 yrs R/o Khanjade Oni Tq Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 404/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023632025
Filing Number
404/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
404/2025
Registration Date
09-Oct-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL Judge and JMFC
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Afaroja Ayajahmmed Khadamatagar Age 46 yrs R/o Khanjade Oni Tq Savanur Dist Haveri
Adv. P.R.KALAL.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri
Case History
-
06-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
18-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
12-Dec-2025
OrdersView PDF
Summary: The compromise petition filed by plaintiff Smt. Afroz and defendant Syed Mir on 04-12-2025 has been rejected. The court found the compromise unlawful because it sought to validate fragmentation of agricultural land (Sy.No.513*/1) into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum threshold prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Notification dated 07-12-2021, which violates statutory land conservation and urban planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
04-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
09-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 404/2025
Summary: The compromise petition filed by plaintiff Smt. Afroz and defendant Syed Mir on 04-12-2025 has been rejected. The court found the compromise unlawful because it sought to validate fragmentation of agricultural land (Sy.No.513*/1) into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum threshold prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Notification dated 07-12-2021, which violates statutory land conservation and urban planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts