1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION LOD.NO.36 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1701 OF 2009 Lalta Prasad Mahadev Sharma .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Ms.P.M.Bhansali i/by Ashutosh Singh for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Shashtri, A.G.P for respondent No.1. Ms.S.M.Modu for respondent No.2-BMC. Mr.Rajiv Narula i/by M/s.J.Narula & Associates for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 28th January 2011 P.C.: This review petition seeks review of an order passed on 30th April 2010 in Writ Petition No.1701 of 2009. 2 The principal ground on which review is sought by the review petitioner is that the petitioner is in occupation of the property prior to the notification dated 6th March 1996 and that this notification mentions 15th April 1996 as a date on which the scheme will come into force. It is contended that this is the date on 2 which all the liabilities created by the final scheme, shall take effect and final scheme effected shall come into force. It is contended that in the order passed on this writ petition the Court has erroneously recorded 6th March 1966 as the date on which the scheme was notified. If the date now brought to the notice of the Court is the date on which the scheme takes effect, then, the petitioner has a right in the property which cannot be brushed aside while implementing the town planning scheme. 3 This review petition was placed before another Division Bench consisting of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and one of us (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J) but it was adjourned as the record pertaining to the scheme was not produced by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Today also, a grievance is made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that repeated correspondence and directions of the Court also have not resulted in production of the original documents and files. What is being shown to the Court is a copy from the scheme book which cannot be relied upon and particularly when inspection of the same is denied to the petitioner. 4 On the last occasion when this matter was specifically adjourned till today, all parties were informed that bearing in mind the urgency and particularly of construction of a bus depot, that no adjournments will be given and Court will 3 proceed on the basis of the record of the BMC. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of BMC has produced before us extract of Form I of the Town Planning Scheme (Distribution and Valuation Statement). This is a town planning scheme II, Borivali (E). As far as the subject survey number is concerned, the statement contains the name of Mr.Moreshwar Welkar and Smt.Sulochana Welkar, Mr.Jayawant Welkar, Mr.Anant P. Welkar and Smt.Sushila M. Welkar so also of Mr.Shripad Welkar. The heirs of Mr.Shripad Welkar are also mentioned as the persons who were in possession on the relevant date. 5 We see much force in the contention of the respondents and particularly of Mr.Narula appearing for respondent No.3 that assuming that the Court has erroneously recorded the date on which the scheme takes effect, yet, going by the statements of the petitioner, the date of acquisition of the property by Mr.Kanti Budhiya Dhodhi and the averments in paras 3 and 4 of the original petition would demonstrate that even the name of the petitioners predecessor in title Mr.Kanti Dhodhi is not appearing in the statement. Therefore, the petitioner who is claiming through the said Kanti will derive no right in the property and particularly of the nature so as to claim any benefit under the town planning scheme. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any alternate accommodation nor a plot in lieu of his present premises. The petitioner’s predecessor’s name not appearing in the records is enough for us to decline review of our order. 4 Therefore, assuming that the date of the scheme coming into effect is erroneously recorded in the earlier order of the Division Bench, yet, that itself will not furnish any ground for review of the same. There is no error apparent on the face of the record much less resulting in any injustice or serious prejudice to the petitioner. The review petition is, therefore, devoid of merits as no case is made out for recalling and reviewing our order within our limited jurisdiction under section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE, J)