IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. OF ....... IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5649 OF 2009 The Collector, Kolhapur and ors. ..Applicants/Petitioners. Versus Ganu Bala Patil. ..Respondent. Mr. A. I. Patel,AGP for the Applicants – Review petitioners. Mr. G. M. Savagave for respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. Civil application is taken for condonation of delay that has occurred in filing review petition. The delay is of approximately 10 months. In paragraph no.3 the review petitioners have given explanation for the delay. In paragraph no.4, further statement is made by the review petitioners that some of the subordinate officers in collusion with the respondents made fraudulent attempt to grab the government land which is otherwise available for rehabilitation of project affected persons. In short, it is the case of the applicants that respondents are responsible for that fraud. In above srp circumstances, I am of the opinion that delay is sufficiently explained and same deserves to be condoned. Civil application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Office to number the Review Petition and place it on board on 21/11/2011. 2. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. OF ....... IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5650 OF 2009 The Collector, Kolhapur and ors. ..Applicants/Petitioners. Versus Deoba Santu Mohite. ..Respondent. Mr. A. I. Patel,AGP for the Applicants – Review petitioners. Mr. G. M. Savagave for respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. Civil application is taken for condonation of delay that has occurred in filing review petition. The delay is of approximately 10 months. In paragraph no.3 the review petitioners have given explanation for the delay. In paragraph no.4, further statement is made by the review petitioners that some of the subordinate officers in collusion with the respondents made fraudulent attempt to grab the government land which is otherwise available for rehabilitation of project affected persons. In short, it is the case of the applicants that respondents are responsible for that fraud. In above srp circumstances, I am of the opinion that delay is sufficiently explained and same deserves to be condoned. Civil application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Office to number the Review Petition and place it on board on 21/11/2011. 2. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 284 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. OF ....... IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5651 OF 2009 The Collector, Kolhapur and ors. ..Applicants/Petitioners. Versus Dattu Sattu Patil. ..Respondent. Mr. A. I. Patel,AGP for the Applicants – Review petitioners. Mr. G. M. Savagave for respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. Civil application is taken for condonation of delay that has occurred in filing review petition. The delay is of approximately 10 months. In paragraph no.3 the review petitioners have given explanation for the delay. In paragraph no.4, further statement is made by the review petitioners that some of the subordinate officers in collusion with the respondents made fraudulent attempt to grab the government land which is otherwise available for rehabilitation of project affected persons. In short, it is the case of the applicants that respondents are responsible for that fraud. In above srp circumstances, I am of the opinion that delay is sufficiently explained and same deserves to be condoned. Civil application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Office to number the Review Petition and place it on board on 21/11/2011. 2. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. OF ....... IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5652 OF 2009 The Collector, Kolhapur and ors. ..Applicants/Petitioners. Versus Narayan Nana Patil. ..Respondent. Mr. A. I. Patel,AGP for the Applicants – Review petitioners. Mr. G. M. Savagave for respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. Civil application is taken for condonation of delay that has occurred in filing review petition. The delay is of approximately 10 months. In paragraph no.3 the review petitioners have given explanation for the delay. In paragraph no.4, further statement is made by the review petitioners that some of the subordinate officers in collusion with the respondents made fraudulent attempt to grab the government land which is otherwise available for rehabilitation of project affected persons. In short, it is the case of the applicants that respondents are responsible for that fraud. In above srp circumstances, I am of the opinion that delay is sufficiently explained and same deserves to be condoned. Civil application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Office to number the Review Petition and place it on board on 21/11/2011. 2. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)