DR ASHOK PUROHIT vs TEHSILDAR AND REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER Advocate - EX PARTY — 16/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39 R 1 AND 2. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)

CNR: RJSK110000582026

Filing Number

58/2026

Filing Date

10-Oct-2022

Registration No

16/2026

Registration Date

10-Oct-2022

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing

Last updated 05-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 39 R 1 AND 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DR ASHOK PUROHIT

    Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TEHSILDAR AND REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER Advocate - EX PARTY

  2. 2.REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur dismissed Dr. Ashok Purohit's petition for interim injunction on the grounds that the disputed land (Khata No. 210, Fatehpur) is a protected forest area notified as such on 22.12.1966 and the petitioner failed to establish prima facie rights over it. The court found that the leases presented by the petitioner were contradictory and did not clearly relate to the disputed property, and that individual interests cannot override statutory protections of reserved forest land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Acjm

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Acjm

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Acjm

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 10-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 16/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur dismissed Dr. Ashok Purohit's petition for interim injunction on the grounds that the disputed land (Khata No. 210, Fatehpur) is a protected forest area notified as such on 22.12.1966 and the petitioner failed to establish prima facie rights over it. The court found that the leases presented by the petitioner were contradictory and did not clearly relate to the disputed property, and that individual interests cannot override statutory protections of reserved forest land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case