# SATYAWAN ANANTA PADAWALE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRATHR SEC. RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS

Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 2025-04-21
Citation: WP/5204/2025
Petitioner: SATYAWAN ANANTA PADAWALE
Respondent: STATE OF MAHARASHTRATHR SEC. RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS

[Official PDF on Bombay High Court website](https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/file/download/eyJpdiI6IjAxcG4wY3hsMThScVdHUFZnU3ZUMHc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiVnlOQ0J1a0drMVhRK1cxVG1EY1N4TzZjSXFsZE9MRXZJS1lLT0FxQTBobUZqNnZjSzMxRkkyRzNuWm1sSk5yV3pDTktBRVNlZmZ4MGJoUXBNbGhabGc9PSIsIm1hYyI6IjIxNGNlOTFiNWU3ZjhiMDcyOWY1ZjNkYWI5NWViZGY4ZmZkMjE4NmMyNGVkZTVmYTNkYWY3NWY4OWZlZDdiOGMiLCJ0YWciOiIifQ==?expires=1782776456&signature=14201908bb8d413b1f017d0f6d447f32a5347a70d070ca403f9ef5161c5672f7)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

12- WP- 5204-2025.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2025 Satyawan Ananta Padwale … Petitioner 1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. Collector, Palghar, Having its office at Palghar, Dist. Palghar 3. Pratik Prabhakar Patil Aged adult, resident of Bilawali Village, Tal. Wadas, Dist. Palghar … Respondents Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji a/w Ms. Lata Bhangoji for petitioner. Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for State for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil a/w Prithviraj S. Gole and Mr. Yogesh D. Keny for respondent Nos.3. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 21, 2025 1 12- WP- 5204-2025.doc ORAL JUDGMENT.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Challenge in the present petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 27 March 2025 passed by the Collector, Palghar in a proceeding initiated under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1959 Act”). By the said order, the Collector allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 and declared the petitioner – who was elected 

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/april/satyawan-ananta-padawale-vs-state-of-maharashtrathr-sec-rural-development-dept-and-ors