Goma Dharma Patil vs may sub-divisional officer land acquisition — 32/2024
Case under Land Acquisition (amendment) Act Section 28A-(3). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Acquisition Reference
CNR: MHRG040011052024
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2024
Filing Number
1108/2024
Filing Date
15-03-2024
Registration No
32/2024
Registration Date
15-03-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Panvel
Judge
4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Goma Dharma Patil
Adv. Mhatre S. A.
Respondent(s)
may sub-divisional officer land acquisition
Central Railway Division Deputy Chief Engineer Panvel Railway Station
Hearing History
Judge: 4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed — The land acquisition direction petition (Petition No. 32/2024) challenging the acquisition of 3,300 sq. meters of agricultural land in Chikhale village at a rate of ₹1,500 per sq. meter was dismissed by the District Judge on March 6, 2026. The court held that the compensation offered by the land acquisition officer was reasonable and in accordance with applicable law, and rejected all contentions raised by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed — The land acquisition direction petition (Petition No. 32/2024) challenging the acquisition of 3,300 sq. meters of agricultural land in Chikhale village at a rate of ₹1,500 per sq. meter was dismissed by the District Judge on March 6, 2026. The court held that the compensation offered by the land acquisition officer was reasonable and in accordance with applicable law, and rejected all contentions raised by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts