Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
54 judgments · newest first · showing 1–54
Petitioner Bhavesh Lakhichand Salunkhe challenged a notice/order dated 17‑12‑2025 issued by the S.D.O. Faijpur under section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The High Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, …
The petitioners challenged the orders dated 20‑06‑2013 and 14‑07‑2015 whereby the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, and the State Minister recorded the names of respondents No. 6 and 7 in the revenue records on the basis of a disputed 1986 partition deed. The respondents had sought to have their …
The petitioners sought a court direction to initiate criminal prosecution against Respondent No.10, a company, for allegedly carrying out illegal excavation. The petition was filed after the petitioner’s counsel was elevated to a judgeship. The police investigated the matter and concluded that an …
The petitioner, Trimbak Sitaram, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging two orders of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahur, which had rejected his applications for summons to revenue officers and for production of original land records relating to mutation entries 212, 222 and 853. …
The petitioner filed an application under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act before the Tahsildar, Newasa, which remained pending at the stage of issuing notice. He invoked a Government Resolution dated 22 May 2025, which mandates that proceedings under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land …
The petitioners challenged an order dated 28.01.2026 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Dhule, which imposed a penalty under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and seized their vehicles. Their counsel acknowledged that an appeal was available but sought immediate release of the …
The petitioners challenged orders dated 14.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Dhule under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which imposed a penalty and seized their vehicles. Their counsel acknowledged that an appeal is available and proposed that the …
The petitioners challenged orders dated 14‑01‑2026 and 17‑02‑2026 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Dhule under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which imposed penalties and detained their vehicles. Their counsel acknowledged that an appeal under the Code was available and …
Ramesh Gulabchand Agarwal filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23 June 2025 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kannad, which condoned the delay in filing an appeal against a mutation entry concerning land survey no.34/1/2/2/AA/126. The petitioner argued that the order violated his …
The petitioners challenged the orders dated 20 June 2013 and 14 July 2015 whereby the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, and the State Minister recorded the names of respondents No.6 and 7 in the revenue records based on a disputed 1986 partition deed. The respondents had sought to have their …
Jaiprakash Shankarlal Mundada filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12‑12‑2024 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Basmath, in appeal no. 2023/CR‑6 concerning a mutation entry under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner argued that the S.D.O.'s order was erroneous and sought …
Petitioner Govind Narayan Shinde challenged an order passed under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code that allowed respondents to construct a road to access their land, claiming it would destroy his dwelling and mango trees. He filed a regular civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction …
The petitioner, Dinesh Babulal Mali, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.01.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The respondent, the Sub Divisional Officer, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an …
The petitioners, brothers of the deceased Tarabai, filed a writ petition challenging the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee’s order of 17 March 2012 that invalidated Tarabai’s tribe status. They claimed to be successors‑in‑interest under a will bequeathing her land and argued that the …
The applicants, Balu Mahadu Gadkar and others, challenged a order dated 05.05.2022 issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, which rejected their appeal on the ground that Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not permit an appeal against the decision to condone …
The applicants, Balu Mahadu Gadkar and others, challenged an order dated 05.05.2022 issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, which rejected their appeal on the ground that Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code barred such an appeal. The High Court had earlier directed …
The petitioners challenged a public notice dated 25‑05‑2026 that ordered an auction of yearly harvesting rights over a parcel of land in Jalna. They had already filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 315 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code read with Section 11 of the …
The petitioners, Madhukar Uddhav Bhagwat and others, filed R.C.S. No.249 of 2024 seeking a declaration and a temporary injunction against the State of Maharashtra (through the Tahsildar) and private respondents. They submitted an application (Exhibit‑5) for a temporary injunction but failed to join …
Petitioner Sandeep Dhondiba More challenged his detention order dated 09.02.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug‑Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons …
The petitioners’ vehicles and machinery were seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the appellate authority release the seized assets upon depositing …
The petitioners’ vehicles and machinery were seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the appellate authority release the seized assets upon depositing …
The petitioners’ vehicles and machinery were seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the appellate authority release the seized assets upon depositing …
The petitioners’ vehicles and machinery were seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the appellate authority release the seized assets upon depositing …
The petitioner, Suresh Bharat Badakh, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra. The petition raised a stay application under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which was pending before the respondent. The …
The petitioner, owner of a tipper truck, was seized by a Circle Officer on 18 November 2022 while allegedly transporting illegal sand without a valid permit. The vehicle was taken to the Tahsil office, a panchnama was prepared there, and a show‑cause notice demanding a penalty of Rs 3,33,224 was …
The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …
The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …
The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …
The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …
Petitioner Mayur Sanjay Adhav challenged the seizure of his dumper (MH-12-FZ-5355) and a JCB machine by the Tahsildar under a panchanama dated 23.04.2025. The Tahsildar, without authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, issued a show‑cause notice and imposed a penalty of Rs.7,50,000, …
The petitioner challenged the order granting status quo on 15 September 2025 and the subsequent order rejecting his application to continue that status quo. The dispute arose from a Section 143 order of the Tahsildar, Nilanga, allowing an 8.25‑foot road through survey nos. 131 and 132, which the …
The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …
The petitioner, Subhash R. Agrawal, challenged a 14 October 2024 order by the State of Maharashtra that remitted a revision application concerning Mutation Entry No. 2534 (dated 1 June 1989) back to the Sub‑Divisional Officer, despite a 24‑year delay. The petitioner argued that under Section 257 of …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
Several petitioners filed writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720, 2026) challenging penalties of Rs. 7,50,000 (or Rs. 2,00,000) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code after their vehicles or machinery were seized by revenue officials. The petitioners sought a direction to …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The petitioners challenged the issuance of a show‑cause notice dated 27 March 2026 by the Tehsildar, Hatkanagale, alleging that it was not issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The High Court examined whether the notice complied …
The petitioners, real brothers, were allotted separate plots of land (Gat Nos. 16/1 and 17/1 to the petitioner and 16/2 and 17/2 to the respondent) following a partition under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner claimed an easement along the northern side of the …
The petitioner, Akhtar Hasan Rizvi, was charged with mischief relating to a 1979 land mutation entry. The parties later reconciled and filed consent terms with the statutory revenue officers to delete the mutation, with the complainant receiving the benefit and the petitioner receiving none. The …
The petitioners challenged the order of the Tahsildar and the Sub‑Divisional Officer that they had obstructed a Vahivat road claimed by Respondent No.3. The court examined the scope of Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, emphasizing that the provision only deals with obstruction of an existing …
The Deccan Co-operative Housing Society (Petitioner) challenged an order dated 17 March 2026 by the Deputy Collector directing the removal of a gate it had erected on a strip of land used as an access way, alleging that the land was part of its allotted property and that the gate had been in …
The petitioner, A.K. Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to prepare and sanction a subdivision assessment record and to update the revenue record for its unacquired property. The petitioner had paid the required …
The petitioner, having obtained development permission, excavated earth at a construction site and used it for filling and levelling. The State imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,17,19,964 under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for unauthorised excavation of what it deemed a minor …
The petitioner filed a civil writ petition challenging an order of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 5 August 2026. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition and obtain liberty to appeal the order before the Appellate Authority under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue …
The petition challenged an order dated 15 June 2026 of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) directing revenue authorities to prohibit transfer of land under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and to record a mutation. The Additional Collector, relying on the NCST order, …
The appellants, a former Circle Officer and Talathi, were accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents that facilitated an illegal property transfer between 1996 and 1998. An FIR was lodged in 2019 and the appellants filed anticipatory bail applications, which received …
