Sarveshri, Rep.by his son/guardian chandrashekar vs The State of Karnataka, Rep.by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi — 68/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/Sec.26,Or.VII,R1. Status: NOTICE. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUP320002172024
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
71/2024
Filing Date
04-03-2024
Registration No
68/2024
Registration Date
05-03-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA
Judge
516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarveshri, Rep.by his son/guardian chandrashekar
Adv. Mallyadi Jayarama Shetty
Respondent(s)
The State of Karnataka, Rep.by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi
The Revenue Inspector, Kota
The Village Accountant, Karkada
The Saligrama Pattana Panchayath Saligrama, Rep.by Chief Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
NOTICE
AWAIT REPORT
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | NOTICE |
| 04-03-2026 | AWAIT REPORT |
| 17-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 27-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 05-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a civil case (O.S. No. 68/2024) from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, decided on 23-10-2024. The court examined witness testimony regarding a property dispute over scheduled lands (A and B schedules) and an alleged public road running through the B schedule property. The court found that the Municipal Corporation had constructed a road on the B schedule property based on a prior resolution, and that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice before the road development work commenced. The case involves competing claims over road construction rights and property boundaries, with the court recording detailed witness statements about the property's boundaries, existing roads, and development attempts since 2013. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a civil case (O.S. No. 68/2024) from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, decided on 23-10-2024. The court examined witness testimony regarding a property dispute over scheduled lands (A and B schedules) and an alleged public road running through the B schedule property. The court found that the Municipal Corporation had constructed a road on the B schedule property based on a prior resolution, and that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice before the road development work commenced. The case involves competing claims over road construction rights and property boundaries, with the court recording detailed witness statements about the property's boundaries, existing roads, and development attempts since 2013. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts