1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 526/2005 (REVIEW) IN W.P. NO. 3647/2007 (D) (Iqbal Singh s/o Manak Singh Soni vs. State of Maharashtra and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED: 22nd February, 2008. *** Heard Shri Nitin Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.R.Deshpande for Respondent No.2 and Shri Deopujari, learned AGP for Respondent No.1-State. 2. The present Review Application is directed against the order dated 23.6.2005 passed by us, whereby Writ Petition No. 3647/2004 came to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Revenue Department has conducted an auction of the teak trees in the year 1988 which includes 74 disputed trees in question. It is, therefore, contended that the stand taken by the Forests Department that the petitioner cut 74 teak trees belonging to Forests Department was not sustainable in law. Consequently, 2 our order dated 23.6.2005 which is impugned here, is bad in law. 4. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 -Forests Department, has submitted that the said auction at later point of time, was cancelled / set aside by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Brahmapuri, on 5.12.1988 and the said order is not challenged by the petitioner. 5. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by respective Counsel. In the backdrop of above -referred facts and keeping in view the fact that auction was set aside by the SDO, it is not open for the petitioner, in such a situation, to claim ownership of the teak trees in question. Since the petitioner has not challenged the order of the said auction and in absence thereof, the conclusion arrived at by us in the impugned order cannot be said to be either bad in law or unsustainable in law. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Review Application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare