Bombay High Court

SHRI SHANTANU LALASO YADAVversusSMT. AMRITA PRATAPSINH SHINDE

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: VRUSHALI V JOSHI

Holding

The petition is disposed of in accordance with the parties' consent terms.

Summary

The petitioner, Shantanu Lalaso Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji, relating to the restoration of a 32M Certificate. Both parties appeared before the court, with the petitioner represented by Mr. Ishaan Kapse, Mr. V. A. Jamdar, and Mr. Tejas Patil, and the respondent represented by Ms. Shivani A. Veer and Mr. R. P. Nirmal. The parties submitted notarized Consent Terms dated 16 January 2026, indicating that the dispute had been amicably settled. They agreed to give full effect to the order dated 9 July 2004, thereby restoring the certificate and setting aside the later revision order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The court, after verifying the parties and the consent documents, accepted the settlement. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the consent terms.

Subjects

consent order
civil procedure
writ petition
settlement
restoration of order

Judgment

901-wp-304-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.304 OF 2016
Shantanu Lalaso Yadav …..Petitioner
Vs.
Amrita Pratapsinh Shinde …..Respondent

Mr. Ishaan Kapse with Mr. V. A. Jamdar & Mr. Tejas Patil, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Shivani A. Veer with Mr. R. P. Nirmal, for the Respondent.
Mr. Ajit Yashwant Alaman (Power of Attorney Holder for Petitioner)
is present in person.
Mrs. Amrita Pratapsinh Shinde, Respondent is present in person.

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 17th JANUARY 2026
P.C.:-

1. The counsel for Petitioner and Respondent have stated that the

matter is amicably settled between the parties.

2. Mr. Ajit Yashwant Alaman, Power of Attorney Holder for the

Petitioner and Mrs. Amrita Pratapsinh Shinde-Respondent are

present. They are verified by their respective counsel. I have also

personally verified both the parties.

3. They have tendered across the bar the Consent Terms dated

16th January 2026 duly notarized before a Notary Public and the

copy of Power of Attorney dated 16th December 2025 on record.

Gaikwad RD 1/3
901-wp-304-2016.doc

Those are taken on record and marked as Exhibit ‘X’ and ‘X1’ for

identification respectively.

4. The Consent Terms are signed by Respondent and Power of

Attorney Holder of Petitioner and their respective counsel. The

parties acknowledge their signatures and admit the contents of

Consent Terms.

5. They have stated that the matter is settled as per Consent

Terms and as per the same they are ready to restore the order dated

9th July 2004 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji in

Tenancy Appeal No.10 of 2003 alongwith corrigendum dated 23 rd

July 2004 by setting aside the order of learned Maharashtra Revenue

Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No.TNC/REV/KP/161/2004

dated 23rd July 2015. They have agreed to give full effect to the

order dated 9th July 2004 restoring the 32M Certificate as existed

before the order dated 7th October 2003 passed by the learned

Tahsildar, Hatkanangale.

6. In view of the consent terms and as I verified the Respondent

and the Power of Attorney Holder of Petitioner Mr. Ajit Yashwant

Gaikwad RD 2/3
901-wp-304-2016.doc

Alaman, it is confirmed that as per Consent Terms, they are ready to

restore the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji.

7. Hence, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as per the Consent

Terms.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)

Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.01.19
16:25:37
+0530

Gaikwad RD 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…