1 RPW-22-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 22 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6292 OF 2006 Pleasure Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M. J. Jamdar for Petitioners. Mr. C. R. Sonawane – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND V. M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 02, 2010. P.C. ( In Chamber) : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Review Petition is directed against the Order dated 20th September 2006 passed by this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 6292 of 2006 came to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that the petitioners pointed out to this Court at the time of hearing of the 2 RPW-22-09 Writ Petition, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7846 of 2004 dated 29th April, 2005 / 2nd May, 2005, wherein it has been held that steps for acquisition have to be taken by the Planning Authority i.e. General Body of the Pune Municipal Corporation (in the present case) and therefore decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner or by the Standing Committee for acquisition of the property in question is no decision in the eyes of law. It is therefore contended that this vitally affects the acquisition proceedings initiated in the present case. However, this Court did not consider the said judgment, hence case is made out to review the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners has further contended that the another ground raised in the original petition that the Notification under Section 126(4) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 6th October 2001 and till date there is no Award and therefore entire acquisition proceedings lapsed as per Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, has not been either considered by the earlier Division Bench nor there is finding recorded in this regard and therefore on this ground also the case is made out to review the impugned order. 3 RPW-22-09 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the review petitioners. So far as the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising power of review is concerned, this Court in its decision dated 1st September 2010 rendered in Review Petition No. 157 of 2010 [Spanco Limited vs. A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited & Anr.] has observed thus:- “At the outset, we want to express that it is well-settled that the power of review is limited in nature and the jurisdiction required to be exercised in this regard is circumscribed by the definite limits fixed by the language used in Order XLVII Rule 1. There are basically three grounds on which the review may be allowed. Those are: (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” In the context of the above referred three grounds, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners need to be considered. Perusal of the impugned order would show that in the original petition the petitioners challenged relevant land acquisition proceedings only on two 4 RPW-22-09 grounds, namely, (i) there was no decision by the Planning Authority to acquire the land and the decision in this regard has been taken only by the Standing Committee of the Corporation, and (ii) there is no Notification issued appointing the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of acquisition of the land which was otherwise required in terms of Section 3(eee) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to the acquisition proceedings in question and that the Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to proceed with the proceedings regarding the land acquisition. 5. It is therefore evident that the land acquisition proceedings may have been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds, however the above referred two grounds only were pressed in action before the Division Bench of this Court at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 6292 of 2006 and therefore by necessary implication other grounds even if they were raised in the petition stands waived and cannot be permitted to be raised once again in the Review Petition. 6. So far as the ground no. 1 is concerned, observations made by this Court in paragraph 6 of the Order are relevant, which reads thus: “As regards the contention that there is no decision of the Planning Authority to acquire the land in terms of section 5 RPW-22-09 127, it is to be noted that the acquisition proceedings are initiated in terms of section 126 of MRTP Act. The communication being in relation to the notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act, that itself will not refer to proceedings which are under section 126 of the MRTP Act. It is nowhere disclosed in the letter dated 1.7.2006 that the proceedings for acquisition which were initiated under section 126 were pursuant to the decision of the Standing Committee alone and without any decision by the Planning Authority. Apparently, the contention which is sought to be raised is totally devoid of any substance.” Similarly, the observations made in paragraph 5 are also relevant. 7. The impugned order do show that the Division Bench has recorded conclusive findings in respect of both the above referred grounds which were pressed in action by the review petitioners at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. Review can only lie if one of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 is made out. Similarly question which is finally decided cannot be reopened except in the circumstances mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1. The grounds pressed in action by the review petitioners at the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition came to be finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court by passing the impugned order, same cannot be reopened under the guise of Review Petition to write a second judgment. 6 RPW-22-09 We have carefully gone through the order sought to be reviewed in the present Review Petition. There is no error either apparent on the face of record or otherwise. On the contrary the findings recorded on the above referred issues are conclusive and binding on the parties. The final conclusion recorded by the Division Bench cannot be reopened in respect of the other issues though raised in the original Writ Petition but not argued by the review petitioners at the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition. 8. The another ground, that since Award is not passed within the stipulated period after publication of Notification under Section 126(4) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned, the said ground was not pressed in action at the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition though raised in the petition and therefore it is not possible for us to entertain the said ground for the first time in Review Petition. 9. In the present Review Petition, the review petitioners failed to point out to us discovery of new and important ground which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and therefore could not be produced by them at the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition. Similarly the findings recorded in respect of the grounds pressed at 7 RPW-22-09 the time of hearing of the original Writ Petition are after due deliberation and proper application of mind. Hence, those findings are final and conclusive and cannot be treated to be the findings recorded by the Division Bench either by mistake or as an error apparent on the face of the record. There is no other sufficient reason placed before us by the learned counsel for the review petitioners. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Review Petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (V. M. KANADE, J.)