1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Civil Application No.2317 of 2009 In First Appeal No.941 of 1997 Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Applicant Vs. Shri Nijam Rajaq Kalawant & ors. Respondents With Civil Application No.2309 of 2009 In First Appeal No.1212 of 2002 Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Applicant Vs. Ajit Abbas Shaikh & ors. Respondents With Civil Application No.2316 of 2009 In First Appeal No. 1107 of 1997 Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Applicant Vs. Shri Suresh Marutrao Jadhav & anr. Respondents 2 With Civil Application No.2497 of 2009 In First Appeal No.728 of 1998 Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents With Civil Application No.2498 of 2009 In First Appeal No.729 of 1998 Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.Tejpal Ingale for applicants in CA.Nos.2317, 2309 and 2316 of 2009. Mr.Prashant Naik for applicants in CA Nos.2497 and 2498 of 2009. Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for resp.no.1 in CA 2317/09 Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for State. Mr.M.L.Patil for resp.no.1 in CA 2309/2009. Mr.V.B.Rajure for resp.no.1 in CA 2316/09. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for resp.no.2 in CA 2497/09 and 2498/09. 3 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. August 10, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant – Municipal Council. By these applications the Municipal Council seeks to review our common Judgment dated 2nd April 2009. 2. We are aware that there were in all nine references filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 decided by different reference Courts but in respect of the land acquired for the very same purpose i.e. rehabilitation of slum dwellers and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was common. However, in some cases standard deductions were provided varying from 25% to 33% and in some cases there were no standard deductions provided. At the same time the market rate varied from Rs.110/- to Rs.185/- per sq. mtr. Our judgment tries to bring a uniformity in fixing the market rate as well as the standard deductions and in fact we had referred to the prayer made by the Municipal Council to bring uniformity in the market rate as well as standard deductions. We also took 4 into consideration the scheme of Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC in respect of those land owners who had not filed Appeals before us. 3. Mr.Ingle, the learned counsel for the applicant – Municipal Council relies upon a decision in the case of Banarsi & ors. Vs. Ram Phal [(2003) 9 SCC 606] and the exceptions set out in para 15 of the said judgment are based on Rule 4 Order XLI and they are not applicable in the instant case as the land was acquired for the very same purpose, notification under Section 4 was common, land is contiguous and references came to be decided by different Courts. Even otherwise the Supreme Court set out the object of the scheme of Order XLI Rule 33 in the following words which goes to show that the review applications do not require any considerations, “...The object sought to be achieved by conferment of such power on the appellate court is to avoid inconsistency, inequity, inequality in reliefs granted to similarly placed parties and unworkable decree or order coming into existence. The overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. Wider the power, higher the need for caution and care while exercising the power. Usually the 5 power under Rule 33 is exercised when the portion of the decree appealed against or the portion of the decree held liable to be set aside or interfered by the appellate court is so inseparably connected with the portion not appealed against or left untouched that for the reason of the latter portion being left untouched either injustice would result or inconsistent decrees would follow...” 4. Hence our judgment does not call for any reconsiderations and it does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The applications are rejected. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)