77-rpwst-24625-2026-wp-4260-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 24625 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7228 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4260 OF 2021 Taibai Gamjya Choudhari … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra through Minister Revenue and Forest Department and Ors … Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil a/w. Ms. Rishabh Tiwari, Ms. Ahitali Bhogle, Mr. Digvijay Patil i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl GP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7228 OF 2026 1. This application is for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The review petition is filed to recall and review the order dated 5th February 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition, necessary Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.09.16 19:18:36 +0530 77-rpwst-24625-2026-wp-4260-2021.doc inquiry was already made and mutation entry Nos. 1074 and 1075 were effected on 25th June 2021. He submits that when the writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner was not aware about the said mutation entries. He therefore submits that in view of the order passed by the civil court, only the petitioner is exclusively entitled to the properties which are the subject matter of the order impugned in the petition. 2. I have perused the mutation entries. It appears that pursuant to the order that was impugned in the writ petition, necessary inquiry is made and the name of other heirs and legal representatives are added in the revenue record along with the petitioner’s name. 3. Hence, when the order dated 5th February 2024 was passed, the order impugned in the writ petition was already implemented. Even otherwise, I do not see any prejudice to the petitioner. There is no ground to recall the order dated 5th February 2024. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay is condoned and the interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). For the reasons recorded above, the review petition is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2