1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2008 Shankarnagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadi, Sangwi ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for State ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Agricultural property of the claimant from Gat No.128 and 149 to the extent of 1 Hector 60 Ares and 80 Ares, situate at village Sangwi (Bk.), Taluka and District Nanded came to be acquired. Being aggrieved by the award, reference was presented to the Collector. The matter was remitted to the competent Civil Court being L.A.R. No.410/1993. After the reference, the issues were framed on 5.4.1995 by the then Civil Judge, Senior Division. It is apparent, thereafter the matter was adjourned at the instance of the claimant to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. Certain photostate copies of documents were tendered. However, claimant did not adduce evidence to prove the same. Even revenue record of 7/12 was not produced to show that claimant was taking cash crop and the land in question was being used for non-agricultural purpose. 2 2. Taking survey of the facts, the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, by judgment and order dated 28.1.2008, rejected the Land Acquisition Reference. Being aggrieved by the same, review petition was moved by the petitioner which also faced brunt of dismissal as the said Court had no power to review. Hence, the Civil Revision Application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs, as is referred in paragraph No.2 of the review application (Page 22), that it was the defect and failure on the part of the counsel, who did not inform about the transfer of the reference from the District Collector, Nanded to the Court as no notice was issued to the claimant. The Advocate also did not inform to the claimant. These averments though are stated on oath, are absolutely controverted by findings recorded by learned Judge while dismissing the claim petition as is appearing in paragraph No.7 onwards. The apathy and slumber shown by the claimant cannot further be encouraged and in particular, considering age of the matter and the property acquired long back. 4. No merit. Civil Revision Application dismissed. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cra130.08