1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.459/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.886/2006 (Decided) Kundanlal Mohanlal Jaiswal and others ...Versus... The Municipal Council, Pusad -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri Nitin Vyawhare, Adv. for applicants] CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :- 06.06.2008 Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. He contends that this Court was incorrectly informed that the land was being required by the Municipal Council for road widening. He contends that the land is in fact required for construction of shopping complex and, therefore, different parameters must apply while considering the case of the present applicants, who are in settled position since long. He further argues that the land does not belong to Municipal Council at all and it vests in State Government and as the applicants are encroachers and law permits them to apply for 2 regularization, they are entitled to apply for regularization. He argues that vis-a-vis the claim of the Municipal Council to the said land, the present applicants who are in actual physical possession of land have got better title and, therefore, their possession needs to be protected. He further argues that one of the respondents in the writ petition was already dead and as his legal heirs were not brought on record, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court had become final as against him. It is to be noted that the suit was filed jointly by several persons and the common cause was being prosecuted in it. This Court has found that the possession of the present applicants was contrary to the provisions of law and there was no lease or other document in their favour, authorizing their possession. It was also found that they were not occupying the premises for residential premises, but were carrying out non-residential activities. I do not find any error apparent or sufficient ground to exercise review jurisdiction. Misc. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE ssw