1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.744 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.5421 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6376 OF 1995 WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) No.5421 of 201 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr S.H.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr G.W. Mattos for respondent no.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 21.12.2011 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of five years 48 days delay caused in filing Review Petition (ST) No.5421 of 2010. The Review Petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2004 by which the writ T 2 petition was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. By the consent terms, 18372 sq.meters of land, out of 30620 sq.meters, was retained by MHADA. 3. The applicant in paragraph 6 of the application for condonation of delay has stated thus :- “The petitioner states that it is true that there is a delay of about four years but this delay is caused only because the petitioner was under impression that everything is proper and it is only when the MHADA authorities came to take away the possession of the land of the petitioner, the petitioner came to know that there is something wrong. The petitioner came to the Advocate in Mumbai at that time he only made the grievance to the Advocate as to how it is possible and why we are being troubled. So far as petitioner's land is concerned, he was given to understand that the land will remain with him. The petitioner's advocate told the petitioner to come with all the papers concerned and gave the list of papers. When the papers came to the Advocate of the petitioner herein, he found out that the petitioner was different, the order is different and the rights of the petitioner so far as Survey No.56(2) are concerned are totally absent in the consent terms and as such today the petitioner is very much affected, if the order stand as it is the petitioner will become landless and no court will in such circumstances pass an order making the petitioner landless. It is even unimaginable that the petitioner would consent to become landless. The petitioner is friable and he does not know 3 law nor was he explained as to what rights he is going to get in the consent terms and, therefore, though petitioner was present he was silent spectator and he went happily with a hope that he will get all the rights. But the things turn to be different and drastically affect his rights over the land. Under these circumstances, though there is delay it is caused because the consent terms were wrongly prepared and the court was made to believe as if all the parties had compromised the matter getting their rights and under these circumstances the delay is liable to be condoned. If the delay is not condoned, the petitioner would suffer greater hardship and irreparable loss.” It is clear from the contents of paragraph 6 that the petitioner realized that something went wrong when MHADA took possession of the land which happened on 20.12.2007. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on 26.2.2010. The contents of paragraph 6 are not only factually incorrect but cannot be stated to be sufficient to condone the delay. This is also clear from the reply affidavit filed by MHADA. In my opinion, the application deserves to be rejected outright. Order accordingly. 4 Consequently, Review Petition (ST) No.5421 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 5