Shri. Usman Ismail Patankar vs May Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Sub Division Officer, Mahad — 114/2020
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 28-A(3). Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Ready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Ref.
CNR: MHRG190008272023
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
114/2020
Filing Date
29-09-2020
Registration No
114/2020
Registration Date
02-02-2021
Court
Court of Civil Judge S.D. Mahad
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Usman Ismail Patankar
Adv. Navale B. T.
Respondent(s)
May Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Sub Division Officer, Mahad
May. Collector, Raigad
May. Executive Engineering, Hetwane Canal Irrigation
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 05-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 05-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 15-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 114/2020 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court set aside the "without caveat" order dated 21.07.2022 issued against respondents 1 and 2, and granted permission for the case to proceed with caveat. Key Points: Petitioner Usman Ismail Patankar sought to quash the without-caveat order and requested caveat permission, citing that respondents' failure to file the caveat within the prescribed time was due to delays in obtaining necessary documents and government counsel discussions. The court found the petitioner's request justified and granted relief, noting that respondents would suffer no prejudice from allowing the caveat, while both parties would benefit from a full hearing on the merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 114/2020 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court set aside the "without caveat" order dated 21.07.2022 issued against respondents 1 and 2, and granted permission for the case to proceed with caveat. Key Points: Petitioner Usman Ismail Patankar sought to quash the without-caveat order and requested caveat permission, citing that respondents' failure to file the caveat within the prescribed time was due to delays in obtaining necessary documents and government counsel discussions. The court found the petitioner's request justified and granted relief, noting that respondents would suffer no prejudice from allowing the caveat, while both parties would benefit from a full hearing on the merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts