Sayed Roman Sayed Gulam Mohiyoddin vs Nilraj Baba Darpallu Advocate - Deshpande J.V. — 30/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU130000542023
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
64/2023
Filing Date
15-05-2023
Registration No
30/2023
Registration Date
15-05-2023
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sayed Roman Sayed Gulam Mohiyoddin
Adv. Patel I.A.
Respondent(s)
Nilraj Baba Darpallu Advocate - Deshpande J.V.
Director of Town Planning
Adv. Mugdia R.P.
Deputy Commissioner (Property)
Adv. Mugdia R.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 30/2023 The petition filed by Sayed Roman Sayed Gulam Mohiyoddin against Nilraj Baba Darpallu Advocate and town planning authorities regarding a property dispute was dismissed on 06.01.2026 by the Aurangabad High Court (Civil Division). The court found that the petitioner's claims regarding encroachment and illegal occupation were not substantiated, and ruled that Respondent No. 1 had valid ownership rights to the property in question. The cross-objections filed by Respondents 2 and 3 were also rejected as without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 30/2023 The petition filed by Sayed Roman Sayed Gulam Mohiyoddin against Nilraj Baba Darpallu Advocate and town planning authorities regarding a property dispute was dismissed on 06.01.2026 by the Aurangabad High Court (Civil Division). The court found that the petitioner's claims regarding encroachment and illegal occupation were not substantiated, and ruled that Respondent No. 1 had valid ownership rights to the property in question. The cross-objections filed by Respondents 2 and 3 were also rejected as without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts