Bombay High CourtCAO/507/2017delay condonatedrejected

Suraj Madhukar Rode And Others v. The Collector Yavatmal And Others

2021-08-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

14.CAO.507.2017.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.507 OF 2017 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.------------------------/2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2002 Suraj Madhukar Rode and others ...Versus...

The Collector, Yavatmal and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Shri A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for applicants. Shri M. A. Kadu, AGP, for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 27/08/2021 The application for condonation of delay in filing review application in respect of the judgment dated 6.1.2016 has been filed on 14.6.2016 by delay of 130 days. Considering the reasons given the delay is condoned. Office to register the review application. Insofar as the application of review is concerned, two grounds are raised mainly that the same instances at Exhibits 50, 51 and 52 which indicates higher price have not been considered and the quantum of deduction of 66 % on the area of the acquired land has not been considered.

14.CAO.507.2017.odt A perusal of the judgment dated 6.1.2016, indicates that the sale instances Exhibits 50, 51 and 52 have been duly considered by the Court while passing the judgment and so also the deduction of 66 % on the area of the acquire land has also been considered which is reflected from para 6 and 7 of the judgment. It is therefore apparent, that the grounds on which the judgment is sought to be reviewed, have been duly raised and considered while passing the judgment. It is therefore apparent, no ground for review is made out, the application for review, is therefore without any merits and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Sarkate