SURESH MADHUKAR PALSHIKAR vs SHRI. KISAN BHIMAJI KHOPADE — IA/239/2026
Case under B.t. & A.l. Act. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010640122025
Filing Number
IA/39360/2025
Filing Date
10-12-2025
Registration No
IA/239/2026
Registration Date
09-01-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 21 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SURESH MADHUKAR PALSHIKAR
Adv. Prathamesh Bhargude
Respondent(s)
SHRI. KISAN BHIMAJI KHOPADE
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR CIRCULATION
DUE ADMISSION - 1
DUE ADMISSION - 1
DUE ADMISSION - 1
DUE ADMISSION - 1
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-01-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 06-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
| 29-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
| 22-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
| 08-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
Orders
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decision that rejected his claim to be a permanent tenant of agricultural land. The court found insufficient evidence of continuous cultivation and tenancy over 35 years, noting the petitioner's shifting legal positions (contractual vs. permanent vs. deemed tenancy), weak oral testimony, lack of consistent rent payment documentation, and that a revenue entry under Rule 31 cannot establish substantive tenancy rights under the Bombay Tenancy Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decision that rejected his claim to be a permanent tenant of agricultural land. The court found insufficient evidence of continuous cultivation and tenancy over 35 years, noting the petitioner's shifting legal positions (contractual vs. permanent vs. deemed tenancy), weak oral testimony, lack of consistent rent payment documentation, and that a revenue entry under Rule 31 cannot establish substantive tenancy rights under the Bombay Tenancy Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts