[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vijay Nathu Mirkute vs State Of Maharashtra Throu. Its Addl ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11983
36-ia1718-26in-rpw(st)-4705-26 Final.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1718 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4705 OF 2026
Vijay Nathu Mirkute Applicant/Review
...Petitioner.
In the matter between
The Tata Power Company Ltd. and Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Milind Patil a/w Umesh B. a/w Trushna Shah i/by
T. Dande for the Applicant.
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w H.N. Vakil, Samkit Shah
i/by Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the
Respondent / Original Petitioners.
Mrs. M.S. Srivastava, AGP, for the State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 11, 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1718 OF 2026
1. This interim application is for condonation of delay. For the
reasons stated in the application, this interim application is
allowed.
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4705 OF 2026
2. Respondent No.1 has filed the present review petition. The
main grievance raised by him is in relation to the order dated 26
36-ia1718-26in-rpw(st)-4705-26 Final.doc
March 2025 passed by this Court. According to Respondent No.1,
while deciding the earlier petition this Court has taken into
consideration two conveyance deeds as the basis for the decision.
It is his submission that such consideration is factually incorrect
and has resulted in an improper conclusion. On this premise, it is
urged that the order requires reconsideration. The second ground
raised in the review petition is that the reasons recorded in the
impugned order are different from the reasons on the basis of
which the petition was ultimately allowed. According to the
respondent, this creates an inconsistency between the reasoning
and the conclusion of the judgment. The third submission is that
certain correction was carried out only on the basis of a letter and
not on the basis of a formal adjudication. It is contended that such
correction, made without a proper order after adjudication, is not
permissible and therefore the order dated 26 March 2025 requires
to be reviewed.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf
of the parties. It is necessary to first notice the nature and scope of
the original proceedings before this Court. The original petition
arose out of survey proceedings conducted by the competent
authority. The controversy before the Court was limited in nature.
It concerned the correctness of the findings which had arisen from
the survey and the demarcation carried out by the authority in
respect of the immovable property in question. The scope of
examination by this Court was therefore confined to testing
whether the survey and demarcation were carried out in
accordance with law and whether the findings recorded by the
36-ia1718-26in-rpw(st)-4705-26 Final.doc
authority suffered from any jurisdictional error or manifest
illegality.
4. When the dispute essentially relates to boundaries of
property, demarcation of land, or the effect of a sale deed, the role
of the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited. This Court
does not sit as an appellate authority over factual findings
recorded in survey proceedings. The Court interferes only when
there is clear illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of law.
In the present case, while deciding the original petition this Court
had considered the material placed on record by all parties. The
pleadings, documents, and the submissions of the learned
advocates were examined. After considering the record, this Court
recorded findings on the issues which arose from the survey and
demarcation proceedings.
5. The grounds which are now urged in the present review
petition were not raised at the time when the original petition was
heard. The parties had full opportunity to place their contentions
before the Court during the hearing of the petition. If certain
arguments were not urged at that stage, they cannot be permitted
to be raised for the first time in review proceedings. The scope of
review jurisdiction is very limited. A review can be entertained
only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or
when some material fact which could not be produced earlier
despite due diligence comes to light. Review cannot be treated as a
rehearing of the entire matter.
6. In the present case, the submissions made by Respondent
36-ia1718-26in-rpw(st)-4705-26 Final.doc
No.1 essentially seek reconsideration of the issues which were
already examined by this Court while deciding the original
petition. The contentions regarding the conveyance deeds, the
reasons recorded in the judgment, and the alleged correction
carried out on the basis of a letter are matters which either formed
part of the earlier record or could have been urged at the time of
hearing of the petition. These submissions do not disclose any
patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The
order dated 26 March 2025 reflects due consideration of the
material which was placed before the Court at that time.
Therefore, the grounds raised in the present petition do not satisfy
the limited parameters within which review jurisdiction can be
exercised.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the
present review petition does not disclose any error apparent on the
face of the record. The grounds raised seek a re-examination of the
issues already decided by this Court, which is not permissible in
review jurisdiction. Consequently, the review petition stands
dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
