FIRDOZ SHIRIN AZHAR AHMED DESHMUKH vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS — WP/5536/2025
Case under Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030173932025
Filing Number
WP/13277/2025
Filing Date
24-04-2025
Registration No
WP/5536/2025
Registration Date
24-04-2025
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FIRDOZ SHIRIN AZHAR AHMED DESHMUKH
Adv. BIRADAR RAMRAO DHONDIRAM
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Adv. RODGE KRISHNA PRATAP AND RODGE PRATAP FOR R/5,AGP FOR R.NOS. 1 TO 4 (WAIVES) 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
URGENT CIRCULATION - CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-04-2025 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 05-05-2026 | |
| 05-05-2026 | URGENT CIRCULATION - CIVIL |
| 06-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 20-02-2026 |
Orders
Case Summary: WP 5536/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) held that a 2021 Mamlatdar's injunction order regarding a customary way through the petitioner's land cannot be enforced against her because she was neither made a party to nor given notice of the original proceeding. The Court ruled the order's operation is limited to original parties only, and any claim for right-of-way against the petitioner requires a fresh proceeding; no coercive action can be taken based on the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP 5536/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) held that a 2021 Mamlatdar's injunction order regarding a customary way through the petitioner's land cannot be enforced against her because she was neither made a party to nor given notice of the original proceeding. The Court ruled the order's operation is limited to original parties only, and any claim for right-of-way against the petitioner requires a fresh proceeding; no coercive action can be taken based on the impugned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts