mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2261 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 1988 RAMCHANDRA KRISHNAJI KULKARNI .. PETITIONER Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO. 4, KOLHAPUR & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 15TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. The applicant is the original petitioner. On 23/4/1999 a Division Bench of this Court passed following order on the petition. “All the office objections shall be removed on or before Wednesday 27th June, 1990. If the objections are not removed on or before Wednesday 27th June, 1990, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further orders.” As the objections were not removed within time frame laid down by this Court, the petition was dismissed without reference to the Court. The present civil application is filed by the petitioner praying that the order dated 23/24/4/1990 be set aside and the petition be restored to the file. 2. We have heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the applicant. He submitted that order dated 23/24/4/1990 was not communicated to the petitioner by his Advocate. It is only when the applicant’s son obtained copies of 7/12 extracts of agricultural lands owned by the family since he intended to start business, he got to know from the entry made in the other rights column that the land is under acquisition for Patgaon Medium project. The applicant, therefore, made inquiry and he got to know that the petition is dismissed for default. It is in these circumstances that the present civil application is filed praying that the order dated 23/24/4/1990 be set aside and writ petition be restored to the file. 3. We have heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that the possession of the land in question is with the applicant. This fact is not disputed by Mr. Gokhale, learned AGP. No reply is filed to the civil application opposing restoration. Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that sufficient case is made out by the petitioner for restoration. 4. It is true that civil application for restoration is filed after extraordinary long period. But the fact that the concerned land is with the applicant is not disputed by the respondents. Besides it is stated in the petition and it has been reiterated by Mr. Bandiwadekar that the applicant is ready to give alternative land to make up the land which is demanded by the respondents. Mr. Bandiwadekar states that the petitioner is desirous of making a representation to the respondents offering alternative land which can be considered by the respondents. In view of this submission made by Mr. Bandiwadekar in the interest of justice, we set aside order dated 23/24/4/1990 and restore the petition to file. 5. Civil Application is disposed of. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)