VISHAL CHANDRAKANT MHATRE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. SEC. REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT AND ORS — HCBM10146102026

Case under Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010146102026

Filing Number

WP/8449/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Coram

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Bench Type

Single

Category

LAND REVENUE CODE MATTERS ( 57 )

Sub-Category

Single Bench ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VISHAL CHANDRAKANT MHATRE

    Adv. ABHIJIT BAPUSAHEB KADAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. SEC. REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT AND ORS

  2. 2.ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER KONKAN DIVISION MUMBAI

  3. 3.BHARATKUMAR PURUSHOTTAM PATEL

  4. 4.RAJKUMAR PURUSHOTTAM PATEL

  5. 5.DHOLCHAND R. MUNOT

  6. 6.LALIT KUMAR R. MUNOT

  7. 7.M/S HAPPY HOME CONSTRUCTION (THR. PARTNER MR. KANTILAL C. GUNDE)

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: Writ Petition No. 8449 of 2026 filed by Vishal Chandrakant Mhatre against the State of Maharashtra and others was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections within the prescribed timeframe. The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, warning that registration will be refused if objections remain unresolved thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Writ Petition No. 8449 of 2026 filed by Vishal Chandrakant Mhatre against the State of Maharashtra and others was adjourned. The petitioner failed to remove office objections within the prescribed timeframe. The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects, warning that registration will be refused if objections remain unresolved thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case