: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.591 of 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.591 of 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.591 of 2004 IN REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2003 A/W REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2004 REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2004 REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2003 Chirag M. Vora ... Applicant/ Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharasthra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar with G.S. Godbole for Applicant/Petitioner Mr.R.M. Sawant for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.M.D. Siodia i/b G.G. Turi for Respondent No.3 CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2005 FEBRUARY 15, 2005 FEBRUARY 15, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Notice of Motion for condonation of delay heard. Allowed. Review Petition taken up for hearing. 2. By this Review Petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the order passed by us on 26.8.2003. The ground for review as contended by the learned Counsel for the Review-Petitioner is that the concessions granted to Shri A.W. Pereira was not only because he : 2 : gave certain lands to Mahendra Vora, but it was a sequel to certain orders made under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Even if that is factually correct, something done under an order passed by an authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act may or may not be correct and certainly cannot bind this Court in extending such concessions to other persons who claimed the same. 3. Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed.