Roma Manoharlal Krishnani Though Raj Manoharlal Krishnani and Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Though The Collector Raigad — 400302/2017

Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Hearing Next hearing 11-Jun-2026

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHRG040037092016

Filing Number

400302/2017

Filing Date

03-Nov-2017

Registration No

400302/2017

Registration Date

23-Nov-2017

Court

Civil Court Senior Division, Panvel

Judge

4-2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

Last updated 30-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Roma Manoharlal Krishnani Though Raj Manoharlal Krishnani and Others

    Adv. Deepak Gaikwad

  2. 2.Avinash Manoharlal Krishnani

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Maharashtra Though The Collector Raigad

  2. 2.The Addl. Division Office

  3. 3.The Tahasildar Khalapur

  4. 4.The Mandal Officer Khopoli

  5. 5.The Talathi

  6. 6.Shivram Kutti Shetti

  7. 7.Ashok Lalit Hajara

  8. 8.Lilavati Sadanand Shetti

  9. 9.Smita Rajesh Shetti

  10. 10.M/S. Watore Group Of Industriaj Through Watore Maya Premdas

  11. 11.Kashinath Laxman Patil Through Jagnnath Parshuram Patil

  12. 12.Shivram Laxman Patil Through Jagnnath Parshuram Patil

  13. 13.Hiru Laxman Patil Through Jagnnath Parshuram Patil

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  3. 18-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  4. 09-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  5. 07-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  6. 12-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  7. 27-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  8. 05-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  9. 17-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  10. 01-Aug-2024

    Issues

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  11. 20-Jun-2024

    Issues

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  12. 21-Mar-2024

    Issues

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  13. 11-Jan-2024

    Reply/Say

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  14. 09-Nov-2023

    Reply/Say

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  15. 31-Aug-2023

    Reply/Say

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  16. 20-Jul-2023

    Reply/Say

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  17. 27-Apr-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  18. 09-Mar-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  19. 19-Jan-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  20. 16-Nov-2022

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  21. 13-Oct-2022

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  22. 23-Jun-2022

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  23. 03-Mar-2022

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  24. 20-Jan-2022

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  25. 23-Dec-2021

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  26. 28-Oct-2021

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  27. 08-Jul-2021

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  28. 06-Apr-2021

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  29. 18-Dec-2020

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  30. 22-Sep-2020

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  31. 16-Jul-2020

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  32. 16-Apr-2020

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  33. 09-Jan-2020

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  34. 19-Sep-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  35. 01-Aug-2019

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: Roma Manoharlal Krishnani v. State of Maharashtra (RCS 302/2017) Outcome: The temporary injunction application was rejected with costs. Key Facts: Plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural property based on a registered Sale Deed from 1967. However, the revenue authority had endorsed the mutation entry as contrary to the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1947, treating the property as a fragment. Defendants (heirs of the original owner and subsequent purchasers) contested plaintiff's title and claimed continuous possession. Court's Reasoning: The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because: (1) the Sale Deed was declared void under the Consolidation Act; (2) plaintiff provided no evidence of actual physical possession despite 69 years of delay; (3) revenue records consistently showed defendants' possession; and (4) plaintiff had no valid legal remedy against revenue authorities as civil court jurisdiction is barred under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code section 158. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  36. 01-Aug-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  37. 25-Jul-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  38. 18-Jul-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  39. 11-Jul-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  40. 27-Jun-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  41. 13-Jun-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  42. 25-Apr-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  43. 18-Apr-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  44. 28-Mar-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  45. 07-Mar-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  46. 07-Feb-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  47. 17-Jan-2019

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  48. 13-Dec-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  49. 29-Nov-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  50. 15-Nov-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  51. 11-Oct-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  52. 27-Sep-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  53. 09-Aug-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  54. 21-Jun-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt.CIVIL Judge, S.d.panvel

  55. 27-Apr-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  56. 05-Apr-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  57. 08-Mar-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  58. 15-Feb-2018

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    2nd CIVIL Judge S.d.panvel

  59. 11-Jan-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  60. 03-Nov-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 400302/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Roma Manoharlal Krishnani v. State of Maharashtra (RCS 302/2017) Outcome: The temporary injunction application was rejected with costs. Key Facts: Plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural property based on a registered Sale Deed from 1967. However, the revenue authority had endorsed the mutation entry as contrary to the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1947, treating the property as a fragment. Defendants (heirs of the original owner and subsequent purchasers) contested plaintiff's title and claimed continuous possession. Court's Reasoning: The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because: (1) the Sale Deed was declared void under the Consolidation Act; (2) plaintiff provided no evidence of actual physical possession despite 69 years of delay; (3) revenue records consistently showed defendants' possession; and (4) plaintiff had no valid legal remedy against revenue authorities as civil court jurisdiction is barred under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code section 158. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case