Datta Pandurang Bachate vs Collector, Buldana — 246/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section --. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHBU210010062022
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
1026/2022
Filing Date
22-11-2022
Registration No
246/2022
Registration Date
22-11-2022
Court
Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Mehkar
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Datta Pandurang Bachate
Adv. Nikas JG
Indu Chagan Gade
Nanda Ramesh Satpute -Dead(Legal Heir) 3.
Dnyaneshwar Ramesh Satpute 3.
Sopan Ramesh Satpute 3.
Ramesh Vikram Satpute
Anita Santosh Thakare
Respondent(s)
Collector, Buldana
Sub-Divisonal Officer, Mehkar
Tahsildar, Mehkar
Talathi, Bori
Mandal Adhikari, Ajani Bk.
Pravin Tukaram Aavhale
Tukaram Kondu Aavhale
Om Dhondu Chankhore
Adv. Rathi OG
Santosh Dhondu Chankhore
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: Niyamit Divani Dava Kr. 246/2022 (Maharashtra) Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's application challenging land ownership and right-of-way issues related to plot 195 in Mehkar. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear legal grounds for the relief sought and that previous court orders regarding the disputed passage were properly executed. The case is adjourned for four months for parties to exchange written submissions and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Niyamit Divani Dava Kr. 246/2022 (Maharashtra) Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's application challenging land ownership and right-of-way issues related to plot 195 in Mehkar. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear legal grounds for the relief sought and that previous court orders regarding the disputed passage were properly executed. The case is adjourned for four months for parties to exchange written submissions and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts