LAKSHMEGOWDA vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HARANGI PROJECT — 45/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O41,R1,RW96. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS320066352023

ARGUMENTS

Next Hearing

18th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

44/2019

Filing Date

22-10-2019

Registration No

45/2019

Registration Date

22-10-2019

Court

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

Judge

1177-VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGEMYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section U/O41,R1,RW96
LAND ACQUISITION (MINES) ACT Section U/S54

Petitioner(s)

LAKSHMEGOWDA

Adv. J.K.MANJUNATH

Respondent(s)

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HARANGI PROJECT

Hearing History

Judge: 1177-VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGEMYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

07-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

03-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

15-11-2025

ARGUMENTS

06-09-2025

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

22-06-2024
Deposition
01-03-2025
Deposition

Summary In LAC(A) 45/2019, the court examined a land compensation case dated 01-03-2025. The witness (PW-1) testified regarding land acquisition of 4 acres 55 guntas in survey nos. 128/1 and 129/1. The court found that the petitioner had already received compensation and filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit, but rejected the claim for additional compensation, holding that no valid grounds existed to award higher relief and that the petitioner's testimony was unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In LAC(A) 45/2019, the court examined a land compensation case dated 01-03-2025. The witness (PW-1) testified regarding land acquisition of 4 acres 55 guntas in survey nos. 128/1 and 129/1. The court found that the petitioner had already received compensation and filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit, but rejected the claim for additional compensation, holding that no valid grounds existed to award higher relief and that the petitioner's testimony was unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

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

Explore other courts

Search Another Case