Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 2420 (BOM)

RAM GANPATI DHULE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

RA/83/2023 · 2026-03-24

Shri Ajit B Kadethankar

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

11-sr915.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2023 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.361 OF 1993 Ram Ganpati Dhule vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ---- Mr.S.K.Adkine, Advocate for applicant Mr.A.A.A.Khan, AGP for respondents ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2026 ORDER :- The petitioner’s land bearing survey nos.34/5 and 34/9 admeasuring 20 Gunthas and 3 Acres and 11 Gunthas respectively situated at village Waradi, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli was acquired by the respondents/authorities for Upper Penganga Project. The award was declared and the petitioner was held entitled for certain compensation. The petitioner has taken that compensation in challenge in the Land Acquisition Reference proceedings. The Reference Court after assessing the evidence on record granted certain enhancement. Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation, the petitioner had preferred First Appeal No.361 of 1993 in this court. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2024 after hearing all the parties, 2026:BHC-AUG:12806 2 11-sr915 dismissed the First Appeal on merits. The said order is not challenged by the petitioner in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner extensively. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently on 16.01.2009 this court allowed the some First Appeals filed by the other stake holders whose lands were the subject-matter of the some land acquisition award proceedings. He would submit that since the other land holders have been granted enhancement by this court in the subsequent judgment, the judgment and order passed by this court on 01.09.2024 in First Appeal No.361 of 1993 be reviewed. 3. The review of an order or judgment is governed by Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is trite law that a subsequent judgment or subsequent change in law will not justify the review proceedings in Order XLVII of C.P.C. In that view of the matter, the review stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP