SHANKARAPPA (D) BY LRS. vs BHEEMARAYA (DEAD) — C.A. No. 13415/2024
Case under Land Laws, Agricultural Tenancy, Land Revenue : Abolition of Zamindari/jagirs/inams/estates, Land Reform Legislations, Agricultural Tenancy, Including Prohibition of Transfer of Land Belonging to Sc/st Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010069112011
Filing Date
01-Mar-2011
Registration No
C.A. No. 13415/2024
Diary Number
6911/2011
Order Date
23-Jan-2025
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 03-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHANKARAPPA (D) BY LRS.
Adv. S-LEGAL ASSOCIATES[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHEEMARAYA (DEAD)
Adv. RAJESH MAHALE (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] HARISHA S.R.[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Jan-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jan-2025
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
-
16-Jan-2025
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
-
09-Jan-2025
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
-
28-Nov-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Nov-2024
Not Taken Up
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
-
19-Mar-2024
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
-
13-Feb-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Feb-2024
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
-
24-Jan-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Jan-2024
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
-
01-Apr-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Apr-2022
Administrative Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari
-
17-Aug-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Aug-2020
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
30-Jul-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jul-2020
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
-
24-Feb-2020
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Feb-2020
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
09-Dec-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Dec-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Aug-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Aug-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Oct-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Nov-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Sep-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Jul-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Feb-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Nov-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Sep-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Aug-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Mar-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Mar-2011
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 13415/2024
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed Shankarappa's appeal challenging occupancy rights granted to the respondents under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974. The appellants, who claimed original ownership, waited over 20 years before challenging the 1976 occupancy order through a writ petition. The High Court Division Bench upheld the occupancy rights granted to the tillers of the land, consistent with the Act's purpose, noting the appellants' inexplicable delay in challenging the order. The Court found no grounds for interference and disposed of all pending interlocutory applications. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts