G.S.Basavalingappa vs Assit.Commissioner and Competent Authority — 23/2013
Case under U/s 10, 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962. Status: ORDERS.. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
Misc - Miscellaneous Cases
CNR: KARN010008962013
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
23/2013
Filing Date
10-06-2013
Registration No
23/2013
Registration Date
10-06-2013
Court
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
Judge
812-PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G.S.Basavalingappa
Adv. Rajanna
Respondent(s)
Assit.Commissioner and Competent Authority
Magers Gail India Ltd,.
Hearing History
Judge: 812-PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
ORDERS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | ORDERS. |
| 04-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 27-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: G.S. Basavalingappa v. Assistant Commissioner and Competent Authority and Margers Gail India Ltd. (Misc. 23/2013) The petitioner sought enhanced compensation for forest land acquisition involving approximately 1 acre 1 guntha in Gundigarje village. The court examined multiple hearing dates between June 2025 and March 2026, during which the respondent presented documentary evidence (12 exhibits) regarding notifications, notices, valuations, and compensation calculations. The petitioner's counsel cross-examined the respondent's witness and challenged the adequacy of compensation offered. On March 6, 2026, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to enhanced compensation and dismissed the petition, finding no further grounds for additional relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: G.S. Basavalingappa v. Assistant Commissioner and Competent Authority and Margers Gail India Ltd. (Misc. 23/2013) The petitioner sought enhanced compensation for forest land acquisition involving approximately 1 acre 1 guntha in Gundigarje village. The court examined multiple hearing dates between June 2025 and March 2026, during which the respondent presented documentary evidence (12 exhibits) regarding notifications, notices, valuations, and compensation calculations. The petitioner's counsel cross-examined the respondent's witness and challenged the adequacy of compensation offered. On March 6, 2026, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to enhanced compensation and dismissed the petition, finding no further grounds for additional relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts