ATMARAM GOVIND PARAB AND ORS vs ANANT ATMARAM DALVI AND ORS — WP/6032/2026
Case under B.t. & A.l. Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010186692026
Filing Number
WP/10854/2026
Filing Date
15-04-2026
Registration No
WP/6032/2026
Registration Date
30-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
Orders passed by Quasi Judicial Authority Other than Labour and Industrial Court ( 105 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ATMARAM GOVIND PARAB AND ORS
Adv. P G SABNIS
SARITA TUKARAM PARAD
PANDURANG SHANKAR PARAB
VISHWAS LAXMAN PARAB
MANGESH VASANT PARAB
CHANDRAKANT APA PARAB DECEASED BY HEIR, PRASHANT CHANDRAKANT PARAB
ANANT APA PARAB
NAMDEV APA PARAB DECEASED BY HEIR, PRAKASH NAMDEV PAAB
NAMDEV JAGANNATH PARAB
JANARDAN JAGANNATH PARAB
SHARAD DHARMARAJ PARAB
RAMESH GOVIND PARAB
NARAYAN SHANKAR PARAB DECEASED BY HEIR, RAJESH NARAYAN PARAB
SHASHIKANT SHANKAR PARAB
SANJAY SHANKAR PARAB
RAMKRISHNA GOVIND PARAB
SANTOSH GOVIND PARAB
SANJAY TUKARAM PARAB
SATISH TUKARAM PARAB
MANALI MAHESH KADAM
ROHINI CHANDRAKANT SAWANT
JAYAWANTI PRAKASH NAIK
VATSALA ATMARAM JADHAV
Respondent(s)
ANANT ATMARAM DALVI AND ORS
MANGESH EKNATH NADKARNI
MANOHAR JAGANNTHA NANCHE
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP 6032/2026 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision that reversed the Sub-Divisional Officer's condonation of a 51-year delay in challenging an Agricultural Lands Tribunal order regarding agricultural land ownership. Key Reasoning: The court held that the SDO erred by condoning the inordinate 51-year delay based on merits rather than examining the sufficiency of the petitioners' explanation. Courts must first scrutinize the bona fides of delay explanations before considering case merits. The court emphasized that delay cannot be condoned as an act of generosity, citing Supreme Court precedent that limitation rules serve important public policy and cannot be frustrate by appeals to "substantial justice." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP 6032/2026 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision that reversed the Sub-Divisional Officer's condonation of a 51-year delay in challenging an Agricultural Lands Tribunal order regarding agricultural land ownership. Key Reasoning: The court held that the SDO erred by condoning the inordinate 51-year delay based on merits rather than examining the sufficiency of the petitioners' explanation. Courts must first scrutinize the bona fides of delay explanations before considering case merits. The court emphasized that delay cannot be condoned as an act of generosity, citing Supreme Court precedent that limitation rules serve important public policy and cannot be frustrate by appeals to "substantial justice." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts