Jaysing Madhavrao Pawar vs The State Thr. Collector Advocate - Musale G. K. — 342/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 09th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH180025222025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
670/2025
Filing Date
24-03-2022
Registration No
342/2025
Registration Date
28-03-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Rahuri
Judge
12-Civil Judge Senior Division
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jaysing Madhavrao Pawar
Adv. Aghav V. V.
Sursing Madhavrao Pawar
Adv. Aghav V. V.
Respondent(s)
The State Thr. Collector Advocate - Musale G. K.
Tehsildar, Rahuri
Circle Officer, Vambori
Ashok Gangadhar Tamnar
Valhu Gangadhar Tamnar(Legal Heir) 5.
Jaibai Valhu Tamnar 5.
Rahul Valhu Tamnar 5.
Rupali Shivaji Hodgar
Sachin Appasaheb Tamnar
Balasaheb Paraji Mane
Dipak Eknath Mane
Anil Eknath Mane
Gorakshnath Bhausaheb Mane
Sandip Savitra Mane
Ganesh Savitra Mane
Shaila Pratap Parkhe
Somnath Manjabapu Mane
Sundarabai Manjabapu Mane
Ranjana Damu Guldagad
Sakharbai Bhausaheb Mane
Samindrabai Bhagwat Mane
Kusumbai Gorakshnath Mane
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Civil Judge Senior Division
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 14-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 30-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's claim and set aside the tahsildar's illegal order (Case No. 18/2016), which had granted new passage rights to defendants 4-6 despite an existing prior passage route. The court held that the tahsildar's decision was unlawful because when prior access already exists, new passage cannot be created under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff was declared entitled to a permanent injunction preventing obstruction and awarded litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's claim and set aside the tahsildar's illegal order (Case No. 18/2016), which had granted new passage rights to defendants 4-6 despite an existing prior passage route. The court held that the tahsildar's decision was unlawful because when prior access already exists, new passage cannot be created under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff was declared entitled to a permanent injunction preventing obstruction and awarded litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts