hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 29 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6348 OF 2004 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for Review Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Patil for R. No. 1. Mr. A.H. Palekar, A panel counsel for R. Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : MARCH 03, 2010 P.C. By this Review Application, the Review Applicant seeks recall of the judgment and order of this court dated 24.3.2009. That judgment was based on the judgment dated 24.3.2009 passed in W.P. No. 3031 of 2004. Both the petitions were heard together and reserved for judgment. In the judgment, the learned Division Bench has clearly referred to the panchanama which was drawn up which contained also the Petitioner’s land and it is also set out that the possession has been taken. This stand was supported by the Land Acquisition Officer. In other words, there is clear finding of fact that the possession of the land has been taken. Once the possession of the land has been taken section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act is not attracted. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record warranting revenue jurisdiction. Hence, review petition rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)