BABAN KARBHARI PAGAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR PP HIGH COURT AN DORS

                                                                                                13_WP11999_26.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO.11999 OF 2026

                               Baban Karbhari Pagar and others                         …       Petitioners
                               Vs.
                               State of Maharashtra and others                         …       Respondents

                               Mr. Sachin Gite for Petitioners.


                                                             CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                     SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                             DATE     : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
                               P.C. :

                               .        Heard Mr. Gite, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                               2.       By this petition, the petitioners have challenged Notification dated
                               15.09.2025 issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation
                               and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
                               Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).

                               3.       The documents filed along with the petition show that the
                               petitioners had raised an objection in respect of the said Notification
                               under Section 15 of the Act of 2013. The said objection was rejected by
                               respondent No.3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) by an order dated
                               08.06.2026. The said order is not challenged in the present writ petition.
                               Instead, the Notification itself is challenged.

                               4.       It is submitted that the Notification deserves to be set aside, for
                               the reason that the stated purpose of acquisition is a service road around
                               a canal. According to the petitioners, such a service road is not required.
                               In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on certain
MINAL    Digitally signed by
         MINAL SANDIP
SANDIP   PARAB

PARAB
         Date: 2026.09.18
         16:12:19 +0530
                               documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. By


                                                                                                             1/2
                                                                 13_WP11999_26.doc



referring to the said documents, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the service road is not required. It is further submitted that
the acquisition is at the behest of a third party, which intends to use the
service road.

5.       We are of the opinion that none of the objections raised by the
petitioners can be considered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Notification under Section 11 of the Act of
2013, proposing the acquisition, is issued by invoking statutory powers
under the provisions of the Act of 2013. There is a proper mechanism
under the provisions of the Act of 2013 to raise objections. As a matter
of fact, the petitioners have raised objections and the same have been
rejected by the said order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the respondent
No.3 - SDO. The said order, as noted hereinabove, is not even
challenged in the present writ petition. It is alleged that in any case, the
respondent No.3 - SDO has not considered the aforementioned grounds
raised in the present writ petition to challenge the Notification.

6.       We are of the opinion that this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction,
cannot go into the question as to whether a service road for a canal is
required or not. It is stated to be for public purpose and it would not be
appropriate for this Court exercising writ jurisdiction to go into the nitty-
gritty of the amount of water being released into the canal and whether
in that context a service road is justified or not. No grounds are made out
for exercising writ jurisdiction to set aside the impugned Notification
dated 15.09.2025.

7.       In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

8.       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                         (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab                                                                   2/2