Malkanna S/o Dundappa Age 63Yrs Occ Agri R/o Kallur B Tq Jewargi Dist Kalaburagi vs The Deputy Commissioner Kalaburagi — 3/2020
Case under Sec151 Cpc Section U/Sec.18(1). Status: EVIDENCE-CIVIL. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
L.A.C. - Land Acquisition Cases
CNR: KAKB610002402020
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
3/2020
Filing Date
11-03-2020
Registration No
3/2020
Registration Date
29-08-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEVARGI
Judge
829-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JEVARGI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Malkanna S/o Dundappa Age 63Yrs Occ Agri R/o Kallur B Tq Jewargi Dist Kalaburagi
Adv. S S Patil
Respondent(s)
The Deputy Commissioner Kalaburagi
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP Bhimarayanagudi Tq Shahapur Dist Yadagir
Hearing History
Judge: 829-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JEVARGI
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
A.D.R.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 18-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 24-01-2026 | A.D.R. |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: LAC 3/2020 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court found that petitioner Malkanna failed to establish his claims regarding the land acquisition proceedings. The court rejected his contentions that the acquired land (Survey No. 27, measuring 2 acres 26 guntas) belonged to him, noting inadequate documentary evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court also found issues with the petitioner's application under Section 18(1) and determined that the ADGP's 2008 acquisition order had no connection to the present case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: LAC 3/2020 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court found that petitioner Malkanna failed to establish his claims regarding the land acquisition proceedings. The court rejected his contentions that the acquired land (Survey No. 27, measuring 2 acres 26 guntas) belonged to him, noting inadequate documentary evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court also found issues with the petitioner's application under Section 18(1) and determined that the ADGP's 2008 acquisition order had no connection to the present case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts