ASHOK PANDITRAO PINGLE AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/6890/2021
Case under Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030184372021
Next Hearing
25th June 2021
Filing Number
WP/14761/2021
Filing Date
14-06-2021
Registration No
WP/6890/2021
Registration Date
23-06-2021
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Bench Type
Single
Category
LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ( 21 )
Sub-Category
INAM AND WATAN ABOLITION ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ASHOK PANDITRAO PINGLE AND OTHERS
Adv. Bhadekar D.R.
SAKHARAM BABURAO MASKE
SARJERAO PANDURANG HADULE
SHRIMANT BAPU MASKE
UDHHAV TULSHIRAM DHAPATE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Adv. LATER ON CAVEAT NO. 1257/21 FILED BY ADV. ANKUSH N. NAGARGOJE CAVEATOR NOT MADE PARTY,AGP For R.Nos. 1 to 4.,A.N. NAGARGOJE FOR R.NO. 5 1123
DY. COLLLECTOR GENERAL
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THE TAHSILDAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-06-2021 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 06-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 04-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 23-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 17-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the writ petition after Respondent No. 5's counsel submitted that the parties had already settled the matter and a compromise decree had been passed. The court found no surviving issues requiring adjudication and accordingly closed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the writ petition after Respondent No. 5's counsel submitted that the parties had already settled the matter and a compromise decree had been passed. The court found no surviving issues requiring adjudication and accordingly closed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts