Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

KAHC020009812016_1

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
Admin
2026-10-28 23:08:15
  • 106
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC020009812016_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (04) 6

Writ Petition No. 100395/2016 (LA-RES) C/W Writ Petition Nos. 100396/2016, 100398-100399/2016, 100400/2016, 100401-100402/2016, 100403/2016, 100404/2016, 100405/2016, 100408/2016, 100409/2016, 100397/2016, 107653/2015 & 108183/2015, 107663/2015 & 108184-108185/2015, 107662/2015, 107652/2015 & 108071/2015, 109068/2015 & 109497-499/2015, 109069/2015, 109066/2015 & 109507-509/2015, 109067/2015, 109088/2015 (LA-RES)

2016-04-28

B. Veerappa

S.M. Kalwad, Madhusudan R. Naik, K. Vidyavati, G.K. Hiregoudar

Shivappa S/o Shankrappa Vadagalla and Others

State of Karnataka and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging land acquisition notifications

Remedy Sought

Quash the impugned notifications dated various dates under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Filing Reason

Acquisition of petitioners' lands for Upper Tunga Project

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4(1), 6(1)
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Land Acquisition Notification under Section 4(1) Notification under Section 6(1) Upper Tunga Project Writ Jurisdiction Articles 226 and 227

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Favour of Constituent in Stock Trading Dispute. Court upholds award based on documentary evidence and rejects challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2026-11-02 00:37:22
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal in Representative Suit Under Section 80 CPC. Lands Not an Estate as Original Grant Did Not Cover Entire Village Under Section 3(2)(d) of Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. 2026-11-02 00:37:21
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition murder natural justice acquittal compensation burden of proof Land Acquisition limitation Jurisdiction Article 226
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Upholds Developer's Challenge to Arbitration Award — ...

High Court Quashes School Tribunal's Order on Employee Reinstatement Due to Procedural Irr...

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Death Sentence in POCSO Case Due to Credible Testimon...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Reversal of Trial Court's Decree on Wi...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Accused in IPC Sections 376, 420, 493, 494, and 495 Case...

Supreme Court Restores Appellate Tribunal's Order on Tariff Determination Due to Breach of...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Challenge to High Court Orders in Civil Appeal — Legal...

Lost Your Password?