The State of Karnataka Department of Agri vs Basavaraj Patil S/o Shivarao Patil, Age 57 years, Occ, Agriculture and Business — 105/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section VIIrule1and2. Disposed: Uncontested--WITHDRAWN on 09th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB510002322025
e-Filing Number
27-06-2025
Filing Number
107/2025
Filing Date
27-06-2025
Registration No
105/2025
Registration Date
27-06-2025
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITAPUR
Judge
951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--WITHDRAWN
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Karnataka Department of Agri
Adv. Noor Iliyas Chadehan
Respondent(s)
Basavaraj Patil S/o Shivarao Patil, Age 57 years, Occ, Agriculture and Business
Chandrakanth S/o Shivarao Patil Alias Shivaraj Malipatil Age 56 Yrs. Occ. Agri. and Business
Shivarao S/o Bapurao Patil, Age 76 years, Occ. Agriculture
Basavaraj S/o Naganna Age 47 years, Occ. Agriculture and Advocate
Hearing History
Judge: 951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
Disposed
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING
OBJECTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 03-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 28-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 24-02-2026 | OBJECTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Senior Civil Judge of Chittapur allowed the plaintiff's application to withdraw a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession. The court found a formal defect in the suit since the disputed property had already been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and the plaintiff intended to challenge a related compromise decree before the High Court of Karnataka instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Senior Civil Judge of Chittapur allowed the plaintiff's application to withdraw a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession. The court found a formal defect in the suit since the disputed property had already been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and the plaintiff intended to challenge a related compromise decree before the High Court of Karnataka instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts