Bombay High Court
GANESH SHANKAR DIMBLE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Petitioners may submit additional written objections under Section 17(1) and must be heard on all objections before any acquisition order is made.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a notification under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 for acquisition of their lands, having already filed objections under Section 17(1) which were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer. They filed an interim application alleging that the statutory step‑wise procedure was not followed, particularly that the officer closed the matter without hearing them. The Court observed that the petitioners had indeed submitted written objections and that the officer had adjourned the hearing but later closed the file without a hearing. It held that the petitioners may file a supplementary statement as further objections under Section 17(1) and must be given an opportunity to be heard on both the original and new objections. The Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to treat the supplementary statement as additional objections, hear the petitioners, and pass a reasoned order within the law. The writ petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioners can raise further objections under Section 17(1) after having already filed objections pending before the Land Acquisition Officer.
- Whether the failure to hold a hearing before closing the matter violates the procedural requirements of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 — s. 15, 17(1), 7
Subjects
- land acquisition
- objections
- procedural fairness
- Maharashtra Highways Act
- writ petition
- hearing
- supplementary objections
Judgment
1
27-wp-11159-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11159 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6812 OF 2026
Ganesh Shankar Dimble and Others …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents
******
Mr. S.S. Kulkarni i/b. Mr. Lengare Y.B. for the Petitioners
Smt. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP, for the State.
******
VISHAL
SUBHASH CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
PAREKAR SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.08.31
17:47:36 +0530 DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have already raised objections as contemplated
under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 in respect of
notification issued under Section 15 of the said Act proposing
acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners. The objections are
admittedly pending before the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The petitioners have also moved an Interim Application in this
petition proposing to raise further grounds of challenge in order to
indicate that the step-wise procedure as contemplated under the
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
27-wp-11159-2026.doc
provisions of the aforesaid Act has not been followed and, therefore,
the acquisition of the subject lands cannot be proceeded with.
4. A perusal of Section 17(1) of the said Act shows that a person
who is interested in a land, other than a person whose objections or
suggestions have been already heard or considered by the authority
under Section 7 of the Act, can raise objections in writing setting out
grounds before the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. The aforesaid provision mandates that the Land Acquisition
Officer shall give an opportunity of hearing to such an objector.
6. A perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition
shows that the petitioners have already submitted their objections in
writing under Section 17(1) before the Land Acquisition Officer and
that the same are pending consideration.
7. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners informs this
Court that initially, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the hearing
for 17th August 2026. Since the officer was not available, the hearing
was adjourned to 18th August 2026. On the said date, the advocate
representing the petitioners had filed vakalatnama, but the Land
Acquisition Officer appears to have closed the matter for orders
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
27-wp-11159-2026.doc
without hearing the petitioners.
8. We are of the opinion that the petitioners can be permitted to
raise further grounds of objections before the Land Acquisition Officer
by submitting a supplementary statement, which shall be treated as
further objections raised under Section 17(1) of the aforesaid Act. The
petitioners shall be heard on the said objections also in addition to the
objections already raised before the Land Acquisition Officer.
9. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to raise
additional objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Officer
within two weeks from today.
10. If such further objections are raised on behalf of the petitioners
within the said time period, the Land Acquisition Officer shall treat the
same as additional objections raised under Section 17(1) of the
aforesaid Act. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer shall grant
hearing to the petitioners on the objections already raised and the said
objections proposed to be raised on behalf of the petitioners. After
hearing the petitioners on the aforesaid objections as contemplated
under Section 17 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer shall
pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law.
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
27-wp-11159-2026.doc
11. Needless to say, all the contentions of the petitioners are kept
open.
12. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….4
Checking your session…