U.A.BASHEER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — C.A. No. 3032/2010

Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010225692009

Filing Date

31-Jul-2009

Registration No

C.A. No. 3032/2010

Diary Number

22569/2009

Order Date

17-Feb-2021

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2021 INSC 95

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.U.A.BASHEER

    Adv. VAIJAYANTHI GIRISH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Adv. ANITHA SHENOY (Dead / Retired / Elevated) SHUBHRANSHU PADHI[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Feb-2021

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 17-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 17-Feb-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

  5. 10-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 10-Feb-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

  7. 09-Feb-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  8. 03-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 03-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 22-Apr-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 22-Apr-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 01-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 26-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 11-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 16-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 23-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 31-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 31-Jul-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 3032/2010

  19. [ 2021 INSC 95 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Supreme Court partially set aside the High Court's dismissal in this Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act case. While upholding that a post-Act partition deed cannot defeat excess land determination, the Court found the High Court failed to adjudicate critical factual questions: whether appellant possessed the disputed property and thus had standing to invoke abatement provisions of the Repeal Act (1999). The case was remitted to the High Court's Division Bench for fresh consideration of possession, allowing additional evidence, to finally resolve whether proceedings should abate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case