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.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJSK110000582026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
58/2026
Filing Date
10-10-2022
Registration No
16/2026
Registration Date
10-10-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DR ASHOK PUROHIT
Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA
Respondent(s)
TEHSILDAR AND REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER Advocate - EX PARTY
REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 10-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 09-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts