IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition No. 27 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2007 1. Namdeo Eknath Bankar and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri Shailendra Kanetkar and Shri G.S.Godbole for petitioners. Shri S.K.Chinchalikar, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 21st April, 2008 21st April, 2008 21st April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Review Petition has been preferred by the petitioners for reviewing the order dated 21st January, 2008 passed in the above writ petition. 2. It is contended that the entire order need not be reviewed but suitable modifications be made so as to set right the apparent errors on the face of record. 3. My attention is invited to the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition and it is urged that directions in paragraph 8 of the order need to be reviewed. It is contended that this Court had very clearly recorded in para 8 that the petitioners are ready to pay the sum computed under the appellate order dated 9th August, 2002 with reasonable interest. In such circumstances, the principal sum computed at Rs.15,28,626/- is not in terms of the Appellate Order and, therefore, is an obvious error. If the statement is recorded that the petitioners would pay the sums as per the Appellate Order, then, the figure of Rs.15,28, 626/- is not correct as it is computed by taking into account Rs.400/- per sq.meters being alleged prevailing rate of land. 4. The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that this is not a case for modification and/or review in as much as what has been recorded by this Court is the statement of the petitioners and the direction is to pay the sum which has been computed on that basis. 5. After the review petition was argued for some time, I had directed that the petitioners should place on record a chart with three alternate computations. The first chart would contain the computation as per the Appellate Order whereas the second chart would contain computation as per the order of the learned Minister passed in Revision and the third chart would take into account the "without prejudice offer" made in the review petition. 6. All the three charts have been placed on record. I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the State Government. The petitioners have made the calculations based on appellate order. Therein they have taken the basis for valuation in terms of the agreement to sell dated 12th March, 1991 and have taken interest at 9% from 1997 to 2002 and 12% from 2003 to 2007. This computation is on 75% of unearned income at Rs.3,48,750/-. 7. The second computation is on the basis of 12% interest on this sum from 1997 to 2007. The third computation is of 15% interest on the said sum and last computation in the charts is as per the valuation done by the Assistant Director of Town Planning at Rs.400/- per sq.ft. as on 3rd October, 1998 and unearned income is, therefore, computed at Rs.15,89,768/- 75% of unearned income as nazarana is Rs.11,92,326/- and the petitioners state that no interest would be payable on this sum. The last computation is on the basis of the Revenue Minister’s impugned order in the writ petition. 8. The learned A.G.P. apart from contending that this is not a case for review or to correct any error has urged that maximum amount should be paid by the petitioners. 9. Having perused the review petition and the order passed by me, I am of the opinion that there is an error apparent in order in as much as when the Appellate Order has been accepted as the basis, then, final direction could not be to pay the sum of Rs.15,28,626/- and interest thereon at 9% p.a. 10. However, when I have observed that interest should be paid, then, in my view, appropriate course would be to direct the petitioners to pay the sum of Rs.9,24,185/- That is on the basis of appellate order dated 9th August, 2002. Since the Appellate Order has been taken as the basis, then, final order should be in consonance with it. 11. Accordingly, the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.9,24,185/-. Shri Kanetkar, after taking instructions from the petitioners, makes a statement that this sum would be paid within six weeks from today. If the amount is paid within the period as aforesaid, Collector to issue necessary certificate. If there is a default, then, the same would carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. No extension under any circumstances would be granted. Review petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)