MAROTI S/O GOVINDA SHELKE AND OTHERS vs THE TAHSILDAR AND MAMLATDAR, MANGRULPIR AND OTHERS — WP/3834/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040154522026
Filing Number
WP/10489/2026
Filing Date
04-May-2026
Registration No
WP/3834/2026
Registration Date
04-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAROTI S/O GOVINDA SHELKE AND OTHERS
Adv. P R AGRAWAL,S. Y. DUNEDAR,S. Y. DUNEDAR, ,AASTHA RAKESH SHARMA,SHREYA HARISH BHAGAT,BASAWNATHE RAKHI HIMMATRAO,S. Y. DUNEDAR
-
2.GOVINDA S/O NIMBAJI SHELKE
-
3.GAJANAN S/O CHANDRABHAN LIE THR. SHRADDHA W/O SHIVAJI SHELKE)
-
4.SHANKAR S/O GOVINDA SHELKE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE TAHSILDAR AND MAMLATDAR, MANGRULPIR AND OTHERS
-
2.SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANGRULPIR
-
3.MIRABAI W/O NARAYAN SHELKE
Case History
-
22-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
22-Jun-2026
Fresh Admission-Mamlatdar's Court Act Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar
-
23-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF
Case Summary: WP 3834/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) adjourned the writ petition challenging orders by the Mamlatdar and Revisional Authority granting access rights from petitioners' land. Notice was issued to respondents returnable on 22.06.2026, with the state waiving service requirements. The court directed parties to maintain status quo and permitted private service on the remaining respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/3834/2026
Case Summary: WP 3834/2026 The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) adjourned the writ petition challenging orders by the Mamlatdar and Revisional Authority granting access rights from petitioners' land. Notice was issued to respondents returnable on 22.06.2026, with the state waiving service requirements. The court directed parties to maintain status quo and permitted private service on the remaining respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts