1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.1221/2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2722/1993 (Decided) Kashiram Bhikaji Zalne and others ...Versus... The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for applicants] [Smt. R.A. Wasnik, AGP for respdt. No.1] [Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for respdt. Nos.2 to 5] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 01.12.2008 This is a review petition against the judgment and order made by this Court on 14.6.1996. This Court relying on the decision in the case of Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and others...Versus...State of Maharashtra, reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1168, which in turn overruled the decision in the case of Tukaram Laxman Gandewar...Versus...Piraji Dharmaji Sidarwar by Lrs. Laxmibai and others, reported in 2 1989 Mh.L.J. 815 allowed the writ petition filed by the tribals way back on 14.6.1996. The applicants were not party to the said litigation obviously because they are the subsequent purchasers of the same suit property and according to learned Counsel for the applicants they have even constructed houses on some piece of land in question. This review petition was heard from time to time but then since the judgment in the case of Kashibai (Supra) holds the field, which was rightly held by this Court on merits, no interference could be made with the judgment under review, but then an opportunity was furnished to the applicants to negotiate with respondent Nos.2 to 5 and since the applicants claimed that they have constructed their houses. Today, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 makes a statement that despite offer being made by his clients to the applicants, they have chosen not to respond. Learned Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants are not responding to the Counsel though the Counsel prepared an affidavit for filing in this review petition. 3 In my opinion, several dates were given to the applicants to grab the opportunity by negotiating, since the legal position is against the applicants, but the applicants have chosen not to do so. On merits, I find that the decision in the case of Kashibai (Supra) will have to be followed by this Court and therefore, I do not find any error with the judgment under review. Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw