NITIN NATHURAM MHATRE THR. ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS — WP/16827/2025

Case under Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition,rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,2013 Section NA. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Next hearing 18-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010593852025

Filing Number

WP/36820/2025

Filing Date

18-Nov-2025

Registration No

WP/16827/2025

Registration Date

10-Dec-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

Bench Type

Division

Category

LAND ACQUISITION/REQUISITION(CENTRAL/STATE) ( 20 )

Sub-Category

COMPENSATION ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition,rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,2013 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NITIN NATHURAM MHATRE THR. ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS

    Adv. Rahul Thakur

  2. 2.BABURAO TUKARAM MHATRE

  3. 3.BALARAM NAMDEO KAMBLE

  4. 4.BALARAM CHANGA KAMBLE

  5. 5.ANANT SHANKAR GHARAT

  6. 6.DEEPAK DHAYA MHATRE

  7. 7.GITESH GANESH GHARAT

  8. 8.BALIRAM SAVALARAM GHARAT

  9. 9.SHANKAR JANU GHARAT

  10. 10.LADKU GANU MHATRE

  11. 11.NARAYAN KANU SHISAVE

  12. 12.PARSHURAM RAMA MHATRE

  13. 13.ASHOK TUKARAM MHATRE

  14. 14.GANESH DATTU GHARAT

  15. 15.KAMALAKAR BALU MHATRE

  16. 16.BALARAM HIRU SHISAVE

  17. 17.JAGDISH DATTU GHARAT

  18. 18.KAILAS GOPAL MHATRE

  19. 19.ABUSHAMA MOHAMMAD SAWALE KHAN

  20. 20.GOMAJI GOVIND JITEKAR

  21. 21.PRAKASH HARISHCHANDRA PATIL

  22. 22.RAVINDRA GOVIND JADHAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

    Adv. ,GP WRIT CELL,GP WRIT CELL,GP WRIT CELL,GP WRIT CELL,GP WRIT CELL,GP WRIT CELL 1123

  2. 2.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (MPNH) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

  3. 3.THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN ROAD, DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

  4. 4.THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

  5. 5.THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PANVEL

  6. 6.THE COLLECTOR OF RAIGAD DISTRICT

  7. 7.THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KOKAN DIVISION

  8. 8.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ZONE

  9. 9., PANVEL

  10. 10.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NAVI MUMBAI

  11. 11.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    High On Board -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/16827/2025 The Bombay High Court granted the petitioners leave to amend their writ petitions to add the District Inspector of Land Records, District Raigad as a party respondent. The court issued notice returnable on 18.06.2026 and indicated it would consider the petitioners' request for an interim direction regarding a fresh joint measurement of disputed land at the next hearing, with petitioners bearing measurement costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  8. 29-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 18-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/16827/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/16827/2025 The Bombay High Court granted the petitioners leave to amend their writ petitions to add the District Inspector of Land Records, District Raigad as a party respondent. The court issued notice returnable on 18.06.2026 and indicated it would consider the petitioners' request for an interim direction regarding a fresh joint measurement of disputed land at the next hearing, with petitioners bearing measurement costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case