Smt. Anjanabai W/O Anna Thorat ... vs Dilip Baliram Khandare And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7443 Bom

                                                          1                                  951-cao-774-2023.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                         CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.774/2023
                                            IN
                                M.C.A. ST. NO. 5837/2023
                                            IN
                           WRIT PETITION NO.5922/2019 (D)

 Smt. Anjanabai w/o Anna Thorat Vs. Dilip Baliram Khandare and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or     directions and
Registrar's orders

                                   Mr. R.S. Nagpure Advocate for Applicant
                                   Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent / State

                                   CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 26th July, 2023

Civil Application (CAO) No. 774/2023 seeks condonation of 17 days delay in filing the review, considering the quantum, the application is allowed office to register the review.

M.C.A. Stamp No.5837/2023, seeks review of the judgment dated 19/01/2023 on the ground that Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition No.778/1999 decided on 24/08/2005 (page 13), considers the position under the old Act in which a discretion was conferred upon the Land Acquisition Officer on account of the use of the word "may" occurring in Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer a dispute, as against which Section 77(2) of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act uses the word

2 951-cao-774-2023.odt

"shall", it is, therefore contended, that the judgment dated 19/1/2023, needs to be reviewed. The proposition laid down in Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) is in respect of the existence of a dispute and not regarding the discretion vested in the Land Acquisition Officer, in view of which, I do not see any ground made out to review the order dated 19/01/2023. The review application is rejected. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande