Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
11 judgments · newest first · showing 1–11
The petitioners challenged the order dated 07‑09‑2018 of the Tahsildar, which allowed an application by Respondent No.3 under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, alleging that the panchanama conflicted with the village map and that no customary road existed. They further contended that …
The petitioner, Bhausaheb Rangnath Shelar, challenged a revision order dated 12‑12‑2022 that upheld a Tahsildar’s decision in an easementary suit concerning an 18‑foot road to Dhaman Vasti. Respondents 3‑8 had applied under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 seeking removal of an …
The petitioners challenged the orders of the Additional Collector and the Tahsildar that allowed respondents to file an application under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 for completing a road. The petitioners argued that the application was not for removal of an obstruction of a …
The petitioners challenged the order dated 18‑03‑2021 of the Tahsildar, Pachora, made under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, which was later confirmed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 24‑05‑2022. They alleged denial of natural justice because no proper notice was served and they …
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) Hadgaon and the confirmation of the Tehsildar's order, alleging procedural irregularity. They argued that under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, the Tehsildar was required to conduct a site inspection and …
The petitioner challenged the order of the Mamlatdar, Dhule Rural, which directed removal of an obstruction on a road leading to the respondent's agricultural land, and the subsequent revision order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioner argued that under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts …
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, seeking an injunction to protect a customary road providing access to their land. After a third party sought to be added, the petitioners applied to withdraw the proceedings, but the Tahsildar proceeded to …
The petition arose from an order of the Tahsildar, Rahuri, confirming the existence of a 2‑3 foot customary pathway on the boundary of Gats 224 and 225 and directing the removal of an obstruction allegedly caused by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the panchnama produced under Section …
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order that set aside a Tahsildar’s order passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 directing respondents to remove an impediment in a road. The Tahsildar had ordered removal after a site …
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order that set aside a Tahsildar’s order passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 directing respondents to remove an impediment in a road. The Tahsildar had ordered removal after a site …
The petitioners, owners of land in Village Mandal, alleged that the Mamlatdar improperly ordered them to remove obstructions on a road used by the respondents to access their agricultural fields. They challenged the Mamlatdar’s order and the Deputy Collector’s confirmation on grounds of procedural …
