Chabubai Bhausaheb Nathuram Warule And Others v. Kamlakar Ganpat Kote And Others

1 RA (CIVIL) NO. 16-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B0MBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 16 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2005 Chabubai Bhausaheb @ Nathuram Warule and others .. Applicants versus Kamlakar s/o Ganpat Kote and others .. Respondents ------ Mr. Pramod C. Mayure, Advocate for applicants Mr. S. G. Ghayal, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents no.3 to 7 CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 18th January, 2018 ORDER:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants Mr. P. C. Mayure. He submits that review applicants are lessees of respondent no.6 and 7 in writ petition no. 3174 of 2005 and that they entered into possession of the property under agreements of lease with respondents no. 6 and 7. 2.

Perusal of the application reveals that the review of the order in writ petition has not been sought on any of the grounds as would be available for a review of a decision in writ petition it being deficient on any count. The review has

2 RA (CIVIL) NO. 16-18.doc been sought only on the ground that the applicants are occupants of impugned construction.

3.

In 2010, the applicants had approached civil court at Kopargaon under proceedings bearing regular civil suits no. 206 of 2010, 207 of 2010, 208 of 2010 and 209 of 2010 seeking injunction against respondents, particularly the Collector, Tahsildar and Chief Officer, Shirdi Municipal Council not to disturb and obstruct applicants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of shops in building construction, which is ordered to be demolished by judgment and order in writ petition dated 20-12-2017. Said suits were dismissed on 18-09-2014 for want of cause of action.

4.

Averments in the review application do disclose that reference to pendency of writ petition before the high court had indeed been made by defendants in civil suits referred to above.

5. It is thus discernible that it cannot be said that the applicants were unaware of pendency of writ petition before this high court with regard to legitimacy and legality of impugned construction wherein they claim to be occupants.

3 RA (CIVIL) NO. 16-18.doc 6.

In the circumstances, review at the instance of applicants is hardly tenable and is not being considered. 7.

Learned counsel Mr. Mayure on behalf of the applicants at this juncture requests that alternate reliefs sought in terms of prayer clauses (B-1) and (C) could be considered. It is for the applicant to take up their cause with concerned authorities or may resort to any other remedy as may be available in law.

8.

Review application as such, is rejected.

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, SUNIL P. DESHMUKH JUDGE JUDGE pnd/-