Mo.Imran Mo.Shafi Punjani vs State Of Maharashtra Through its Collector — 119/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 02. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHWS110010322025

Filing Number

938/2025

Filing Date

05-Mar-2021

Registration No

119/2025

Registration Date

05-Mar-2021

Court

Civil Judge Senior Division, Karanja

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 02

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mo.Imran Mo.Shafi Punjani

    Adv. S.Y.Kashid

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Maharashtra Through its Collector

  2. 2.Tahsildar Karanja lad

    Adv. GANGAWANE GOVARDHAN DNYANDEO

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 119/2025 Outcome: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. Key Facts: Petitioner Mo. Imran Mo. Shafi Punjani challenged a Tahsildar's order (dated 22/12/2020) imposing a fine of Rs. 6,60,852/- for unauthorized conversion of agricultural land (Gat No. 67/2) to non-agricultural use. The court found that despite receiving notice, the petitioner failed to appear at revenue proceedings, leading to the fine order. The petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the order be declared null and void and for permanent injunction. Court's Holding: The Civil Judge found that: (1) the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action; (2) the petitioner's claim that the Tahsildar violated principles of natural justice was maintainable before the civil court; (3) Sections 11 (Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876) and 158 (Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966) did not bar the suit as the petitioner sought declaration and injunction—reliefs only civil courts can grant, not revenue authorities; and (4) following the Bombay High Court precedent in *Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwar v. State of Maharashtra* (2006), civil jurisdiction existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  12. 24-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  13. 18-Dec-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 05-Mar-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 119/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 119/2025 Outcome: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. Key Facts: Petitioner Mo. Imran Mo. Shafi Punjani challenged a Tahsildar's order (dated 22/12/2020) imposing a fine of Rs. 6,60,852/- for unauthorized conversion of agricultural land (Gat No. 67/2) to non-agricultural use. The court found that despite receiving notice, the petitioner failed to appear at revenue proceedings, leading to the fine order. The petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the order be declared null and void and for permanent injunction. Court's Holding: The Civil Judge found that: (1) the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action; (2) the petitioner's claim that the Tahsildar violated principles of natural justice was maintainable before the civil court; (3) Sections 11 (Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876) and 158 (Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966) did not bar the suit as the petitioner sought declaration and injunction—reliefs only civil courts can grant, not revenue authorities; and (4) following the Bombay High Court precedent in *Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwar v. State of Maharashtra* (2006), civil jurisdiction existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case