F M ASSOCIATES THR ITS PARTNER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS — WP/6016/2026
Case under Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010077772026
Filing Number
WP/4444/2026
Filing Date
13-02-2026
Registration No
WP/6016/2026
Registration Date
30-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Bench Type
Division
Category
LAND REVENUE CODE MATTERS ( 57 )
Sub-Category
Division Bench ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
F M ASSOCIATES THR ITS PARTNER
Adv. PRATIK BALASAHEB RAHADE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS
DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAIGAD
SAMEER ABDUL HAQ NAJE
INDERSEN LANDE
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 16-04-2026 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
| 08-05-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary of WP 6016/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of F.M. Associates' writ petition challenging alleged illegal surveys and statutory duty failures by respondent No.4. Rather than granting the requested direction, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the District Collector (Raigad), directing that any such representation be expeditiously considered and resolved. The Court also preserved the petitioner's right to pursue their appeal before the Additional Commissioner on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of WP 6016/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of F.M. Associates' writ petition challenging alleged illegal surveys and statutory duty failures by respondent No.4. Rather than granting the requested direction, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the District Collector (Raigad), directing that any such representation be expeditiously considered and resolved. The Court also preserved the petitioner's right to pursue their appeal before the Additional Commissioner on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts