Dasharath s/o Shrawan Paratwagh vs State of Maharashtra and other 4 Advocate - Patil Mahesh K — 5/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA050001532018
Filing Number
125/2018
Filing Date
17-02-2018
Registration No
5/2018
Registration Date
17-02-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dasharath s/o Shrawan Paratwagh
Adv. Sonkamble Vijay A
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra and other 4 Advocate - Patil Mahesh K
Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedpur
Adv. Patil Mahesh K_DGP
Executive Enginner, Latur
Adv. Patil Mahesh K_DGP
Bandu s/o Ramchadra Rathod
Adv. Shelke Vijaykumar S
Uttam s/o Sopan Rathod
Adv. Eppar Devidas N
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Dasharath s/o Shrawan Paratwagh v. State of Maharashtra Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner's suit, declaring him the owner of 2 hectares 8 ares in plot 156, Vadavadi village, while restricting respondent 4's claim to 44 ares already acquired by the government for a reservoir project. Key Reasoning: The court upheld a 1996 compromise decree that transferred land ownership to the petitioner through a settlement between parties. While acknowledging the decree wasn't formally registered, the court found it remained valid and binding, creating substantive property rights that couldn't be negated by administrative inaction alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Dasharath s/o Shrawan Paratwagh v. State of Maharashtra Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner's suit, declaring him the owner of 2 hectares 8 ares in plot 156, Vadavadi village, while restricting respondent 4's claim to 44 ares already acquired by the government for a reservoir project. Key Reasoning: The court upheld a 1996 compromise decree that transferred land ownership to the petitioner through a settlement between parties. While acknowledging the decree wasn't formally registered, the court found it remained valid and binding, creating substantive property rights that couldn't be negated by administrative inaction alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts