1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12253 OF 2009 IN REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 24359 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 104 OF 1998 Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University Nanded .. .. Applicant Versus Mohd. Isaq S/o Mohd. Hayat and others .. .. Respondents Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri P. V. Mandalik, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri B. V. Wagh, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 02ND DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mandalik, senior counsel for the respondent No. 1. Both invited my attention towards previous litigations which went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The special leave petition was filed and the case of the applicant was not considered and was condemned mainly on the ground of delay. The matter is again reiterated on 2 the same ground as told. The acquisition was made for present applicant/University. The applicant is in possession of the acquired land. The respondent No. 1 has filed execution proceeding for recovery of the compensation which is in progress and some attachment warrants have been issued. 2. Shri Patil submits that, the special leave petition was not decided on merits, but it was decided only on the ground of delay caused in filing the petition for grant of leave to file the appeal. Therefore, the application for review of the order is maintainable. I have gone through the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13.09.2009 on the application of the applicant/University. 3. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the application for grant of relief muchless the condonation of delay and the applicant/University is further directed not to repeat the mistake by filing such applications on the same grounds when all the applications were heard and decided. No case is made out for condonation of delay, therefore the application deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed with no order as to cost, because the applicant is the University. The civil application is disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec.09