SANDIPAN SAHEBRAO NIRMAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/11414/2016

Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Nov-2016

CNR: HCBM030400902016

Filing Number

WP/32078/2016

Filing Date

15-Oct-2016

Registration No

WP/11414/2016

Registration Date

18-Nov-2016

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India
Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Writ Pet

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDIPAN SAHEBRAO NIRMAL

    Adv. ARVIND KESHAVLAL TIWARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

    Adv. NO CAVEAT,GP FOR R.1 TO 5 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioner's advocate confirmed that the revenue record had been mutated in the petitioner's name, rendering the petition moot. The court accepted the landholder's account (Form 8-A) as evidence and marked it on record accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  4. 17-Mar-2020

    Due Admission -CIVIL

    According To Sitting List

  5. 22-Nov-2016

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. BordeView PDF

  6. 22-Nov-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 15-Oct-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/11414/2016

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioner's advocate confirmed that the revenue record had been mutated in the petitioner's name, rendering the petition moot. The court accepted the landholder's account (Form 8-A) as evidence and marked it on record accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case