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 documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. By 1/2 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.09.18 16:12:19 +0530 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.) 2/2 Minal Parab