Arvind Balu Shinde vs Collector, Satara Advocate - Madane V.S — 5/2018
Case under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Maharashtra) Section Recovery. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Acquisition Reference
CNR: MHST050007032018
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
701/2018
Filing Date
12-09-2018
Registration No
5/2018
Registration Date
12-09-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arvind Balu Shinde
Adv. Dange A.R.
Respondent(s)
Collector, Satara Advocate - Madane V.S
Special Land Acquition Officer No. 16, Satara
Adv. Madane V.S
Executive Engineer, Kanher Canal, Division No. 2, Karawadi
Hearing History
Judge: 6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 30-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by Respondent No. 2 to set aside the 'No Written Statement' (W.S.) order against Respondent No. 3 is allowed. The 'No W.S.' order passed on 26.04.2019 is hereby set aside, and Respondent No. 3's written statement is taken on record after payment of costs of Rs. 100. The court granted this relief considering that the delay was due to technical grounds and that the government body (Respondent No. 3) deserves an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by Respondent No. 2 to set aside the 'No Written Statement' (W.S.) order against Respondent No. 3 is allowed. The 'No W.S.' order passed on 26.04.2019 is hereby set aside, and Respondent No. 3's written statement is taken on record after payment of costs of Rs. 100. The court granted this relief considering that the delay was due to technical grounds and that the government body (Respondent No. 3) deserves an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts