:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 29229 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2003 Shri Raghunath Bahiru Shukare ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.C. Kansara i/by Kansara & Thanekar for petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & B.H. MARLAPALLE & B.H. MARLAPALLE & A.P. A.P. A.P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DESHPANDE, JJ. DESHPANDE, JJ. Date Date Date : April 09, 2008. : April 09, 2008. : April 09, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kansara the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Cardozo, the learned AGP, appears for the respondents-State authorities. 2. Writ Petition No. 2472 of 2003 was decided by us on 21/9/2006 and by setting out reasons. By this :2: Review Petition the petitioner prays for review of the said order. 3. In his arguments Mr. Kansara stated that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.17, Pune, which was relied upon by us in support of the reasons set out in para 8 of the order under review could not be countered by filing rejoinder in the absence of proper instructions. He further stated that the said affidavit relied upon by us was not supported by the record and in fact it was contrary to the record. 4. We are afraid, such a ground cannot be a reason to entertain a review petition and it was for the petitioner to file a rejoinder in reply to the affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.17 in time and admittedly no such rejoinder was placed before us when the order under review was passed. Therefore, the petitioner’s remedy would be somewhere else and not by way of a review petition. We have also gone through the other grounds of review and we are satisfied that the review petition cannot be entertained. :3: 5. Hence, the review petition is hereby rejected summarily. (A.P. (A.P. (A.P. Deshpande,J.) B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Deshpande,J.) B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Deshpande,J.) B.H. Marlapalle,J.)