Dismissed

Dattatray Vasantrao Keshaowar, P.O.A Rajendra v. Keshaowar and Ors. v Sub Divisional Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, Yavatmal and Others

Bombay HC3 May 2024CAO/562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur adjudicated a review application under Section 114 of the Constitution as an appellate remedy filed without delay. The court dismissed the review plea for lack of merit. The court held that claims of concealed rights or fraud cannot warrant a review if those were never the subject matter of the original judgment.

What did the court decide?

The civil application for review is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Dattatray Vasantrao Keshaowar, P.O.A Rajendra v. Keshaowar… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:5300

¶2

CAO 562 of 2024.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.562/2024 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) ST. NO.5935/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5817/2019 (D)

¶6

Dattatray Vasantrao Keshaowar and others

¶7

...Versus…

¶8

Sub Divisional Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal and others

¶9

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

¶10

- - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. I.M. Ghongade, Advocate for applicants Ms D.V. Sapkal, AGP for respondent no.1

¶11

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 03/05/2024

¶12

Heard.

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay

¶14

in filing the application for review is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶15

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) ST. NO.5935/2024 I N

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.5817/2019 (D)

¶17

Mr. Ghongade, learned counsel for the applicants seeks review of the judgment dated 02/02/2024 passed in Writ Petition No.5702/2019 and connected matters on the ground

¶18

CAO 562 of 2024.odt

¶19

¶20

that the applicants were not parties to the petitions, and have rights accrued to them, which are required to be considered on the ground of concealment of material facts.

¶21

In case the applicants have an independent right, it is open for them to take appropriate steps, to ensure their protection. This, however, cannot be a ground for review of the judgment dated 02/02/2024 passed in Writ Petition No.5702/2019 and connected matters, as a plea of fraud, which was never the subject matter of the petitions, cannot be entertained, for the purposes of holding that a review would be maintainable.

¶22

I, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain the application for review. The Misc. Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶24

Wadkar

Dattatray Vasantrao Keshaowar, P.O.A Rajendra v. Keshaowar and Ors. v Sub Divisional Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatray Vasantrao Keshaowar, P.O.A Rajendra v. Keshaowar and Ors. v Sub Divisional Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramrao Atmarao Bachhav and Ors. vs Education Officer, Secondary Zilla Parishad, Nashik and Ors.

Ashutosh Nandakishor Ranade vs Deccan Education Society through Trustee Neel Helekar and Secretary Kulkarni

Mayuri Suresh Bamne vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Ishrat Sultana Wd/O Mohd. Shafi and Others Vs Smt. Jameela Begum Wd/O Mohammad Rafique and Others

Sadhana W/O Devendra Singh Vs Ishwar Krupa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

Col Naveen Nand Keswani vs Giridhar Armane