varsha 4-RPW-114-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.114 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 11450 OF 2019 Bapu Baburav Patole .. Petitioner V/S. The Special Land Acquisition Officer -4 (Panshet Benefitted Area) Pune And Ors .. Respondents ------------------- Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for the petitioner/applicant. Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, for the respondent/State. -------------------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner is seeking review of an order dated 07/02/2019 passed by this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming lapsing of acquisition was dismissed. 3. Relevant portion of the order dated 07/02/2019 reads as follows: 3. In the instant matter, the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1969 and the award was declared in the year 1974. 1 of 2 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2026.08.28 16:14:22 +0530 varsha 4-RPW-114-2026.doc The person whose name appeared in the award statement is no more and it would be difficult for the petitioner, who has not even stated his relationship with the original owner whose name appears in the award statement, to state as per his personal knowledge that the said person has neither received amount of compensation nor the possession of the property has been delivered. The belated petition has been presented after 45 years from the date of award. The facts stated in the petition that the possession of the property has not been delivered or the amount of compensation has not been paid, have been disputed by the State. The mutation entries in the name of the State Government have been recorded more than 30 years back, whereas the panchanama in respect of delivery of possession has been drawn on 26th March 1974. The disputed questions raised in the petition, after lapse of about 45 years from the date of award, need not be investigated in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed" 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the review petition, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any ground to show an error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 07/02/2019. No ground for review is made out. 5. Review petition is dismissed. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2 of 2