Shivaji Annasaheb Ghungrad vs The State of Maharashtra Through Tahasildar Advocate - KOLHE D N — 535/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready Next hearing 29-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHJN020019542021

Filing Number

1915/2021

Filing Date

10-Dec-2021

Registration No

535/2021

Registration Date

10-Dec-2021

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Jalna

Judge

29-2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shivaji Annasaheb Ghungrad

    Adv. DESHPANDE S. M.

  2. 2.Shreepat Annasaheb Ghungard

  3. 3.Sindhubai Devidas Ghungarad

  4. 4.Kundlik Bhaguji Jadhav

  5. 5.Sampat Devji Jadhav

  6. 6.Suresh Devidas Ghunagrad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Tahasildar Advocate - KOLHE D N

  2. 2.Sub Divisional Officer

  3. 3.Special Land Acquisition Officer

  4. 4.The State of Maharashtra Through Collector

Case History

  1. 29-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  5. 27-Jan-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  6. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  7. 22-Dec-2025

    Dismissal Order

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  8. 18-Dec-2025

    Dismissal Order

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  9. 24-Nov-2025

    Dismissal Order

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    Dismissal Order

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  11. 02-Sep-2025

    Dismissal Order

    2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  12. 19-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  13. 09-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  14. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  15. 12-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  16. 17-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  17. 12-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  18. 19-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  19. 16-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  20. 23-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  21. 26-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  22. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  23. 15-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  24. 24-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division

  25. 29-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  26. 20-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  27. 20-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  28. 18-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  29. 29-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  30. 23-Oct-2023

    Issues

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  31. 13-Sep-2023

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: RCS 535/2021 Outcome: The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction was rejected on 13 September 2023. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from constructing a road through their agricultural land (Blocks 90, 91, 97) in Jalna. Defendants claimed measurements showed the road runs along a riverbank west of the properties, not through plaintiff-owned land, and that no land acquisition was necessary. Court's Decision: The judge found plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case, as they provided no maps or measurements demonstrating the road passed through their property. The defendant's spot inspection report, panchnama, and measurement supported that the road was being constructed on riverbank land (not owned by plaintiffs), making the question of land acquisition moot. Plaintiffs have opportunity to pursue relief on the merits of the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  32. 13-Sep-2023

    Issues

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  33. 05-Sep-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  34. 19-Aug-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  35. 04-Aug-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  36. 26-Jul-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  37. 14-Jul-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  38. 28-Jun-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  39. 14-Jun-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  40. 03-May-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  41. 17-Apr-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  42. 03-Apr-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  43. 14-Mar-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  44. 16-Feb-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  45. 20-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  46. 03-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  47. 17-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  48. 28-Nov-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  49. 31-Oct-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  50. 04-Oct-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  51. 22-Aug-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  52. 01-Aug-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  53. 07-Jul-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  54. 28-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  55. 18-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  56. 06-May-2022

    Reply/Say

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  57. 21-Apr-2022

    Reply/Say

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  58. 31-Mar-2022

    Appearance

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  59. 30-Mar-2022

    Appearance

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  60. 08-Mar-2022

    Appearance

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  61. 21-Feb-2022

    Appearance

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  62. 25-Jan-2022

    Appearance

    3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Divison

  63. 15-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  64. 10-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 535/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 535/2021 Outcome: The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction was rejected on 13 September 2023. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from constructing a road through their agricultural land (Blocks 90, 91, 97) in Jalna. Defendants claimed measurements showed the road runs along a riverbank west of the properties, not through plaintiff-owned land, and that no land acquisition was necessary. Court's Decision: The judge found plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case, as they provided no maps or measurements demonstrating the road passed through their property. The defendant's spot inspection report, panchnama, and measurement supported that the road was being constructed on riverbank land (not owned by plaintiffs), making the question of land acquisition moot. Plaintiffs have opportunity to pursue relief on the merits of the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case