Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...

ik-72574342 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 (9)

Birendra Saraf Counsel Respondent Darshna Kamble Counsel Petitioner Eknath Dhokale Counsel Petitioner Gaurav Potnis Counsel Petitioner Payal Patil Counsel Petitioner Rakesh Singh Counsel Respondent Sachit Bhogle Counsel Respondent Vijay Patil Counsel Respondent Yogesh Patil Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

MSRDC Respondent State of Maharashtra Respondent Maruti Shivram Jaykar Petitioner Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade Petitioner Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle Petitioner

Case Significance

Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... is a Bombay High Court decision dated December 24, 2025 (citation: ik-72574342). Five connected writ petitions challenged an MSRDC circular used to determine land acquisition compensation, arguing it violated Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Court quashed the impugned circular, holding that compensation must be determined in accordance with Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Awards passed by consent were left undisturbed, and affected landowners were given liberty to challenge individual 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 an MSRDC circular used to determine land acquisition compensation, arguing it violated Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Court quashed the impugned circular, holding that compensation must be determined in accordance with Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Awards passed by consent were left undisturbed, and affected landowners were given liberty to challenge individual awards.

What was the outcome of Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...?

Five connected writ petitions challenged an MSRDC circular used to determine land acquisition compensation, arguing it violated Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Ac...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-72574342)