1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2189 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2190 OF 2001 (FOR REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.3825 OF 1999 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Office, Jaikwadi Project, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Aurangabad. .. Applicants Versus Kacharu s/o Sandu Kapse, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., R/o. Leha, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad. .. Respondent ... Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for applicants. Mr. N.P. Patil, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : There is delay of 69 days in filing Review Petition. In the facts of the present case, we 2 condone the said delay. Review Petition is to proceed forthwith. 2. The grievance made in this Review Petition cannot be the basis to review the order in question. The order passed on 17-01-2000 in Writ Petition No. 3825/2009 merely states that the amount fixed by the award may be paid to the petitioner. According to the review petitioners, the amount specified in the corrected award, which is a final award, has already been paid. The fact that the award was corrected on 16-03-1999, which fact was not disclosed in the petition filed before this Court. However, the writ petitioner is insisting for payment of award on the basis of incorrect award, and since that amount was not paid as resorted to the Contempt Petition. Suffice it to observe that the grounds stated in the Review Petition would be available as defence in the Contempt Petition but that cannot be the basis to review the order in question which merely calls upon the review 3 petitioner to pay the amount fixed by the award. If the corrected award has to prevail as per law, obviously payment made in accordance with the said corrected award would be the compliance of the direction given by this Court on 17-1-2000. In the circumstances, this Review Petition is disposed of. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/ca2189.01