Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioner, Bhausaheb Bhikaji Pawar, challenged two consecutive orders passed under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, the first being an order under Section 5 allowed after a panchnama and the second a challenge under Section 23 dismissed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioner filed a …
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. The High Court, on 15 June 2016, directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.10,000 as a show of bonafides. On 3 August 2026 the petitioners instructed their counsel to withdraw the …
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. The High Court, on 15 June 2016, directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.10,000 as a show of bonafides. On 3 August 2026 the petitioners instructed their counsel to withdraw the …
Laximen B. Purekar filed a writ petition challenging an order that confirmed a Tahsildar's decision based on a spot inspection conducted without his presence. The court examined the panchnama and found that the inspection was carried out behind the petitioner's back, violating the Mamlatdar’s Courts …
The petitioners alleged that the respondents had obstructed the natural flow of a government nala adjoining their land and sought relief under Sections 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. The Mamlatdar ordered the respondents to clear the nala, but the respondents challenged this order …
The petitioners, owners of agricultural land Gut No.159 in Nanded, were sued by neighboring landowners (respondents) who claimed a pre‑existing usage pathway (Wahivat Rasta) through their land and sought its clearance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. A panchnama was taken …
The petitioner, Dattatrey Kanu Patil, challenged a Sub‑divisional Officer's order rejecting his objection to the disbursal of compensation for 15 gunthas of land slated for acquisition under the Virar‑Alibaug Multimodal Corridor project. The objection was raised under Section 19‑B(6) of the …
The petitioner, Mathurabai Rama Pimparkar, challenged concurrent judgments and orders issued under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, alleging that the original order dated 2015, which has been in force for twelve years, adversely affected her rights. The High Court examined whether it …
The petitioners challenged a July 2026 order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Baramati, which rejected their revision against a Tahsildar’s order under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 directing removal of an impediment in Rasta Case No.46/2024. They alleged that the spot inspection ordered by the …
The petitioners challenged orders passed by a Mamlatdar’s Court that were based on an application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. The Court observed that the application failed to describe the exact boundaries or particulars of the road for which relief …
The petitioners challenged an order dated 8 June 2026 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, by filing a revision before the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO), Pune. The SDO refused to entertain the revision, holding that the petitioners were not parties to the …
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26 November 2025 issued by the Revisional Authority under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, which had set aside the Mamlatdar’s order under Section 5 dismissing the respondents’ application for removal of obstruction and …
The petitioners, owners of land parcels Gat No.28/1 and Gat No.30/1, challenged an order dated 31 October 2023 that directed matters concerning their lands. They alleged that the Gram Panchayat’s letters to the Tahsildar (June 27, 2022 and a withdrawal on July 14, 2022) did not mention their parcels …
The landlords leased agricultural land to the respondents for ten years (1950‑60). After the lease expired, the landlords sought possession under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, but the application was dismissed because the land was only natural grass. They then terminated the …
