Govind Poslya Gavit vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...

ik-62647629 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 (6)

Birendra Saraf Counsel Respondent Darshna Kamble Counsel Petitioner Eknath Dhokale Counsel Petitioner Gaurav Potnis Counsel Petitioner Sachit Bhogle Counsel Respondent Vijay Patil Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Respondent State of Maharashtra Respondent Govind Poslya Gavit Petitioner Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade Petitioner Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle Petitioner

Case Significance

Govind Poslya Gavit vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... is a Bombay High Court decision dated December 24, 2025 (citation: ik-62647629). Five connected writ petitions challenged an MSRDC circular on land acquisition compensation methodology, arguing it violated the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Division Bench quashed the impugned circular, holding that Section 11 of the 2013 Act must apply for proper determination of compensation. Awards passed by consent were left undisturbed, and parties with pending challenges were given liberty to raise contentions based on the ruling. The bench comprised Justices Aarti Sathe and G.S. Kulkarni. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.S. Kulkarni. Counsel appearing: Birendra Saraf (counsel for respondent), Darshna Kamble (counsel for petitioner), Eknath Dhokale (counsel for petitioner), Gaurav Potnis (counsel for petitioner), Sachit Bhogle (counsel for respondent), Vijay Patil (counsel for respondent).

Summary

Five connected writ petitions challenged an MSRDC circular on land acquisition compensation methodology, arguing it violated the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Division Bench quashed the impugned circular, holding that Section 11 of the 2013 Act must apply for proper determination of compensation. Awards passed by consent were left undisturbed, and parties with pending challenges were given liberty to raise contentions based on the ruling.

What was the outcome of Govind Poslya Gavit vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...?

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-62647629)