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. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. 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 VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.08.31 17:47:36 +0530 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