NARASAMMA vs THE SPL.LAO, HASSAN — 37/2017

Case under Land Acquisition (Mines) Act Section 54(1). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 18-Apr-2026 this date has passed

LAC(APPL) - L.A.C.APPEAL

CNR: KAMS320064632023

Filing Number

38/2017

Filing Date

06-Jul-2017

Registration No

37/2017

Registration Date

15-Jul-2017

Court

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR

Judge

1177-VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition (Mines) Act Section 54(1)
Code of Civil Procedure Section O41,R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARASAMMA

    Adv. V.S. DHANANJAYA

  2. 2.SAKAMMA

  3. 3.PUTTAMMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE SPL.LAO, HASSAN

  2. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

  3. 3.THE PRL. SECRETARY

  4. 4.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

  5. 5.SANNATHIMMAIAH

Case History

  1. 18-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  4. 07-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  5. 03-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  6. 15-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  7. 18-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  8. 23-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  9. 28-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  10. 19-Apr-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    The petition (LAC(A) 37/2017) is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner's appeal filed 1230 days beyond the limitation period lacked valid justification, and therefore no grounds existed to entertain the delayed petition. The court upheld that the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced compensation for the land dispute and rejected the appeal due to procedural defects and delayed filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  11. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  12. 05-Apr-2025

    Enquiry

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  13. 01-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  14. 30-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  15. 21-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  16. 27-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  17. 01-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  18. 27-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  19. 20-Jan-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  20. 20-Jan-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  21. 20-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    VIII Addl. District And Sessions Judgemysuru Sitting At Hunsur

  22. 18-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 06-Jul-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 37/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The petition (LAC(A) 37/2017) is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner's appeal filed 1230 days beyond the limitation period lacked valid justification, and therefore no grounds existed to entertain the delayed petition. The court upheld that the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced compensation for the land dispute and rejected the appeal due to procedural defects and delayed filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case