Tukaram Balbhim Redekar vs Sarjerao balbhim redekar — 1063/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO110044872025
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
04-12-2025
Filing Number
1261/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1063/2025
Registration Date
10-12-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malshiras
Judge
2-IInd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tukaram Balbhim Redekar
Adv. VIKRAM BHIMRAO BHILARE
Respondent(s)
Sarjerao balbhim redekar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-IInd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Issues
Evidence
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 11-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 23-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1063/2025 Case: Tukaram Balbhim Redekar v. Sarjerao Balbhim Redekar Court Order (24 March 2026): The petitioner's application (Notice 5) is dismissed. The court found that the claimed agricultural land (Plot 81/1/a/2/a/2/b, 2.56 hectares) was legitimately acquired by the Maharashtra government for the Pazar Dam project in 1994 and belongs to the government. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of government misconduct and improper land demarcation, determining he has no legal standing to prevent the land's government use. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1063/2025 Case: Tukaram Balbhim Redekar v. Sarjerao Balbhim Redekar Court Order (24 March 2026): The petitioner's application (Notice 5) is dismissed. The court found that the claimed agricultural land (Plot 81/1/a/2/a/2/b, 2.56 hectares) was legitimately acquired by the Maharashtra government for the Pazar Dam project in 1994 and belongs to the government. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of government misconduct and improper land demarcation, determining he has no legal standing to prevent the land's government use. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts