Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade vs State Of Maha. Thr. Chief Sec. And Ors

ik-180094156 Bombay High Court 24 December 2025 • WRIT PETITION NO. 8296 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION NO. 10143 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION NO. 13025 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION NO. 16778 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION NO. 16779 OF 2023; Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 10143; Writ Petition No. 10143; Writ Petition No. 8296 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 13025 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 10143 • 49 min read

Judges (2)

Aarti Sathe Coram G.S. Kulkarni Delivered

Counsel (11)

Birendra Saraf Counsel Respondent Darshna Kamble Counsel Petitioner Eknath Dhokale Counsel Petitioner Gaurav Potnis Counsel Petitioner M.S. Bane Counsel Respondent Pallavi H. Potnis Counsel Petitioner Payal Patil Counsel Petitioner Rakesh Singh Counsel Respondent Sachit Bhogle Counsel Respondent Vijay Patil Counsel Respondent Yogesh Patil Counsel Respondent

Parties (7)

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Respondent State of Maharashtra Respondent Govind Poslya Gavit Petitioner Kamlakar Raghunath Ahirrao Petitioner Maruti Shivram Jaykar Petitioner Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade Petitioner Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle Petitioner

Case Significance

Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade vs State Of Maha. Thr. Chief Sec. And Ors is a Bombay High Court decision dated December 24, 2025 (citation: ik-180094156). Five connected writ petitions challenged MSRDC's circular on land acquisition compensation that applied a formula different from statutory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 and the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The Division Bench quashed the impugned circular, holding that compensation must be determined through proper Section 11 proceedings rather than by an administrative formula. Pending challenges to awards based on the quashed circular were preserved, and consent awards The bench comprised Justices Aarti Sathe and G.S. Kulkarni. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.S. Kulkarni.

Summary

Five connected writ petitions challenged MSRDC's circular on land acquisition compensation that applied a formula different from statutory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 and the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The Division Bench quashed the impugned circular, holding that compensation must be determined through proper Section 11 proceedings rather than by an administrative formula. Pending challenges to awards based on the quashed circular were preserved, and consent awards were left undisturbed.

What was the outcome of Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade vs State Of Maha. Thr. Chief Sec. And Ors?

Five connected writ petitions challenged MSRDC's circular on land acquisition compensation that applied a formula different from statutory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 and the Righ...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-180094156)