UMESH RAM GIRI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/11068/2018
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030351592018
Next Hearing
04th October 2018
Filing Number
WP/27817/2018
Filing Date
10-09-2018
Registration No
WP/11068/2018
Registration Date
03-10-2018
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UMESH RAM GIRI
Adv. NARWADKAR MRIGESH D.
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE
DUE ADMISSION [ AFTER NOTICE ]
DUE ADMISSION [ AFTER NOTICE ]
DUE ADMISSION -CIVIL
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS]
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-04-2019 | DUE ADMISSION [ AFTER NOTICE ] |
| 11-06-2020 | DUE ADMISSION [ AFTER NOTICE ] |
| 07-01-2019 | DUE ADMISSION -CIVIL |
| 28-11-2018 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS] |
| 30-01-2019 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
Orders
The High Court at Aurangabad allowed Umesh Ram Giri's writ petition, quashing the land forfeiture order against him. The court found that the Deputy Collector's 2012 forfeiture order, upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, was unsustainable because authorities failed to act within three years of the 1995 sale deed, violating established precedent that revisional powers under the Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act must be exercised within three years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Aurangabad allowed Umesh Ram Giri's writ petition, quashing the land forfeiture order against him. The court found that the Deputy Collector's 2012 forfeiture order, upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, was unsustainable because authorities failed to act within three years of the 1995 sale deed, violating established precedent that revisional powers under the Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act must be exercised within three years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts