1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 119 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 of 1998 Mr. Narsingrao Krushnaji Shelke ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.P. Thorat for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale-AGP for respondents 1(a)-1(d) CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ (IN CHAMBER) DATED:- JUNE 7, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The limited grievance made before us is in the context of observations made in Paragraph 6 of our order dated 18th March, 2010. In particular last sentence which reads thus:- “It is unnecessary to burden this Judgment with the apprehension of the Petitioners in relation to Survey No. 161/2 which in our opinion is misplaced as the said land is not the subject matter of acquisition.” 2 3. Counsel for the Petitioner is relying on the evidence of witness no.1 for the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 the State of Maharashtra & Tahasildar, Mr. Gopal Ganpat Uplenchwar where he has stated thus: “Relevant part of para no.1:- Since the year 1991, I am working as Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 13 at Pune. Acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of land of block no. 550 of mauje Pargaon started in the year 1970. Relevant part of para no.5:- As per my knowledge Govt. has decided to acquire southern side land of gat no. 550. It is true that Govt. had acquired two hectors 2 are land southern side land of gat no. 550 and further proceedings there carried out pertaining to that land. It is true that except the above mentioned land of gat no. 550 Govt. has not started acquisition proceedings about remaining land of that gat number.” 4. In addition, reliance is placed on the map which according to the Petitioner is the topography of land bearing Survey No. 550/1 and 161/2. The argument clearly overlooks that the suit as originally filed by the Petitioner was for declaration and injunction in respect of Award passed in relation to Gat No. 3 550/2 admeasuring 2H 2R. No other land was subject matter of the said proceedings. The fact remains that the Petitioner is not in a position to produce any notification either under Section 4, 6 or 9 to substantiate the argument that even Survey No. 161/2 was subject matter of acquisition. As has been observed by us in the order under Review, the said land was not subject matter of acquisition. 5. We see no reason to review that factual position. The argument of the Petitioner that entries in the 7/12 extract in relation to the said land mentions the ownership and possession of the Government, does not take the matter any further. If such entries have been wrongly recorded, it is for the Petitioner to take appropriate measures as may be advised. Even the State of Maharashtra represented through Counsel before us has not asserted that land bearing Survey No. 161/2 was subject matter of acquisition as such. 6. In the circumstances, we see no reason to review the order in question. Review Petition is dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)