[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Uday Mansuclal vs Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar ... on 6 January, 2026
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2026:BHC-AS:331-DB 1 4-rpw.2-26-F.docx
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2810 OF 2023
Uday Mansuclal : Petitioner.
Versus
Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman & Diu & Ors. : Respondents.
______________________________________________________
Mr. Pradeep Havnur a/w. Mr. Sanjay S. Kharat, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Dedhia for the Respondent No.1.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M. S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 06 JANUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition seeks a review of our judgment and order
dated 7 March 2025.
3. This petition has been filed by engaging a different
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
advocate who has raised the same argument by seeking to rely
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
2026.01.07
12:48:36
+0530
on an additional circumstance, which is, to a great extent,
quite irrelevant. In any event, the averments regarding
reasonable diligence about this circumstance are also lacking
in particulars, and they inspire no confidence whatsoever. In
2 4-rpw.2-26-F.docx
short, this is nothing but an attempt to re-argue the matter by
changing the counsel.
4. The petitioner had questioned the impugned acquisition
on the ground that it was not for any public purpose. This
challenge was duly considered and rejected by judgment and
order of 7 March 2025.
5. The petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition No.8928
of 2025 against the above judgment, and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dismissed the same on 3 April 2025. At that stage, no
leave was sought to file any review petition.
6. Instead, the petitioner filed a fresh Writ Petition
No.8185 of 2025 before the Co-ordinate bench of this Court,
in which the Co-ordinate bench, on 24 November 2025, made
the following order:
1. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with this Petition,
particularly in view of the Petitioner's approach in the
earlier Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2023, which was
dismissed by order dated 7th March 2025 by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on the very same issue. In
our clear opinion, a second round on the same issue
would not be permissible and would, in fact, amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
2. Mr. Havnur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states
that the Petitioner is not available in India and
accordingly intends to take instructions.
3. Only as a matter of indulgence, stand over to 28th
November 2025. To be listed on the supplementary
board.
7. After the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner,
on instructions from the petitioner, sought leave to withdraw
the Writ Petition 8185 of 2025 with liberty to file this review
3 4-rpw.2-26-F.docx
petition. This was granted. Hence, this review petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the
impugned acquisition was for the setting up of a private hotel,
and further, it was not for any tourism project. He referred to
provisions of Section 2 (b) (i) and 2 (b) (vi) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, (said
Act) to support his arguments.
9. He pointed out that it was only through the internet that
the petitioner, who resides in the United Kingdom, learned
that the land had been acquired for the construction of a hotel
by the Indian Hotels Company Ltd. (IHCL), a member of the
TAJ group of hotels. He submitted that this fact was not
known to the petitioner, and that it is a very relevant fact to
infer that the acquisition of the petitioner's property was not
for any public purpose but was only to set up a private hotel.
10. We have duly considered the argument and perused the
record. However, we find no good ground to allow this review
petition for the reasons briefly indicated hereafter.
11. Firstly, there are no clear pleadings regarding the
exercise of due diligence. Paragraphs 1 to 14, which are
supposed to contain factual averments and which are verified
as facts true to the knowledge of the petitioner, contain no
solemn averments on the aspect of reasonable diligence.
12. Secondly, in paragraph 15 on page 40, there is a
sentence about "reasonable care and diligence". This is a bare
reference without any particulars whatsoever. The verification
is defective, inspiring no confidence.
4 4-rpw.2-26-F.docx
13. Even the internet information, which is placed on pages
90 and 93 of the paperbook, refers to " collaboration between
the Daman and Diu Administration and IHCL". This
information also includes a reference to the hotel's
inauguration, along with photographs.
14. Now, based on such information, no review petition can
be entertained. Obviously, if the photographs in the
information are to be accepted, the hotel is complete in all
respects and even inaugurated by the Hon'ble Prime Minister
of our country.
15. Aside from the material placed on record initially and
now in this review petition, it is apparent that the acquisition
was for a tourism project. The argument that there is no
public purpose involved because the petitioner himself was
running a hotel was considered and rejected. The reference to
the statutory provisions is misplaced, and, in any event, such
arguments were duly considered and rejected earlier. That
rejection was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
16. Neither a case of error apparent on the face of the
record nor a case of discovery of any vital evidence, which,
despite due diligence, could not have been obtained earlier, is
made out. No other sufficient cause is shown to invoke the
review jurisdiction. Based on the internet information now
relied upon, no inference can be drawn that this was an
acquisition always intended for a private hotel and that it
involved no public purpose. This petition appears to be an
attempt to keep the pot boiling.
5 4-rpw.2-26-F.docx
17. This review petition is filed only to take a chance, and
that too, by engaging a different advocate. Therefore, we are
satisfied that there is no merit in this review petition.
18. We dismiss this petition but refrain from awarding any
costs at the persuasion of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)
