RAJ SARATHI CO-OP. HOUSING FEDERATION LTD. SAHIL D SALVI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FOREST — HCBM20405352025

Case under Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966 Section 1. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM020405352025

Filing Number

IA/40534/2025

Filing Date

11-Dec-2025

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Land Revenue Code, 1966 Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJ SARATHI CO-OP. HOUSING FEDERATION LTD. SAHIL D SALVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FOREST

  2. 2.THE COLLECTOR MUMBAI SUB-URBAN DISTRICT BANDRA

  3. 3.THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  4. 4.THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DEVELOPMENT PLANNING),

  5. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BP) K/WEST WARD

  6. 6.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

  7. 7.POLICE INSPECTOR

  8. 8.OSHIWARA LABOUR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, THROUGH CHAIRMAN ABDUL AHAD KHAN (ORG. PETITIONER)

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Registrar(os)/Prothonotary and Sr. MasterView PDF

    Multiple petitions filed by Raj Sarathi Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. and Sahil D Salvi against Maharashtra State and Mumbai authorities were given a final opportunity to cure procedural defects. The court ordered petitioners and applicants to remove office objections and file compliance within two weeks, failing which all petitions and interim applications would stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Interim Application

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shyam C. Chandak

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Dec-2025

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Multiple petitions filed by Raj Sarathi Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. and Sahil D Salvi against Maharashtra State and Mumbai authorities were given a final opportunity to cure procedural defects. The court ordered petitioners and applicants to remove office objections and file compliance within two weeks, failing which all petitions and interim applications would stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case