HIRACHAND KEVALCHAND GHANDI AND ORS vs GAJANAN RAM PATIL AND ORS — HCBM10148562026

Case under Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 11-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010148562026

Filing Number

WP/8579/2026

Filing Date

25-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 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HIRACHAND KEVALCHAND GHANDI AND ORS

    Adv. Vishal Thaker

  2. 2.VIRCHAND KEVALCHAND GHANDHI

  3. 3.RATANCHAND VANECHAND GHANDHI

  4. 4.PADMESH SURESH GHANDHI

  5. 5.SUSHILA SURESH GHANDHI

  6. 6.ASHOK VANECHAND GHANDHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GAJANAN RAM PATIL AND ORS

  2. 2.CHANDRAKANT RAM PATIL

  3. 3.CHATPAT RAM PATIL

  4. 4.SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PANVEL

  5. 5.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ALIBAUG

  6. 6.THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,KONKAN DIVISION

  7. 7.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jun-2026

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

    The writ petition was notified on 29th April 2026 for removal of office objections, but the petitioners and their advocate failed to comply. Rather than refuse registration outright as per Rule 3(iii), the court granted two weeks' additional time to remove the objections, with a warning that failure to do so will result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Objections To Be Removed

    Assistant Registrar

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

The writ petition was notified on 29th April 2026 for removal of office objections, but the petitioners and their advocate failed to comply. Rather than refuse registration outright as per Rule 3(iii), the court granted two weeks' additional time to remove the objections, with a warning that failure to do so will result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case