-: 1 :- RPW-16267/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (st) NO. 16267 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2009 Vasant D. Kulkarni ..Applicant. Versus Ananda S. patil ..Respondent. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the applicant/review petitioner. Mr. V. B. Rajure for the respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 13, 2010. P. C. : 1. This civil application is filed for condonation of delay of 120 days occurred in filing revision application. Civil application is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice, delay is condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.) srp -: 2 :- RPW-16267/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (st) NO. 16267 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2009 Vasant D. Kulkarni ..Applicant/petitioner Versus Ananda S. patil ..Respondent. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the review petitioner. Mr. V. B. Rajure for the respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 13, 2010. P. C. : 1. By this application, review of the order passed by this Court on 7th May 2010 in Writ Petition no.10465 of 2009 is sought. By the said order, respondent (original petitioner) was granted liberty to withdraw the proceedings initiated by him under section 32-G of the BT&AL Act. In view of the withdrawal, observation was made that the order passed by the Tehsildar, SDO and Revisional Authority will not survive for consideration. Liberty was also given to the petitioner and respondent to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 2. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that original proceedings filed by the respondent under section 32-G were dismissed on the ground of non compliance of provisions of section 32F(1) of the said Act. He submitted that in view of the dismissal of the said proceedings, right has accrued in favour of the applicant under the srp -: 3 :- RPW-16267/10 provisions of Section 32-P of the said Act. He also submitted that in above circumstances, his statement that he has no objection for withdrawal of original proceedings by the respondent is wrongly recorded. Mr. Rajure, learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, opposed the review application by submitting that the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant was correctly recorded. 3. When the writ petition was argued at the stage of admission, it was specific contention of the respondent that land in question was given to him for cultivation of sugar cane, however, inadvertently his lawyer filed proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act. He submitted that in fact section 32-G has no application in view of the provisions of section 43-A of the said Act. He submitted that in these premises, he sought leave for withdrawal of the original proceedings with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. 4. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant at the time of argument of writ petition he had disputed the position that said land was given to the respondent(original petitioner) for cultivation of sugar cane. This statement of learned counsel for the applicant is recorded by this court in the order dated 7th May 2010. Mr. Kadam had no objection for withdrawal of the original proceedings under section 32-G. However, he -: 4 :- RPW-16267/10 submitted that liberty be also given to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings. In view of the submissions, this Court had granted liberty to the respondent and applicant to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum. This court has also recorded the statement of the applicant’s lawyer that he has no objection for withdrawal of original proceedings initiated by the respondent under section 32-G. 5. This Court passed above order keeping in mind the provisions of section 43-A of the said Act under which the respondent (original petitioner) has no protection and applicant – original respondent can apply for possession under section 29 read with 89 of the BT&AL Act. In above circumstances, applicant has not made out any ground for review of the order dated 7th May 2010. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 5 SCC 458 in the matter of K. S. Bhoopathy & Ors. v. Kokila & Ors.. However, I find that in the facts of the present application, the said decision has no application. 6. In the light of above observations, revision petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)