AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. S. Sonak, J
Heard Mr. G. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicants/review petitioners and Ms. V. Sardessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
By instituting this review petition, the appellant seeks to re-argue the matter, which is not permissible.
Mr. Usgaonkar submits that the Reference Court should not have relied upon the Sale Deed dated 18.03.1998 because the same was a sale instance eight years before the Section 4 notification. He relies on some observations in Deputy Collector and SDO V/s. Milagrina Pereira E Xavier(2012) 7 ALLMR (Cri) 638 and Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Collector of Hailakandi (1997) 9 SCC 673, to support his contention.
In both the decisions, no inflexible rule appears to have been laid down. In any case, this particular Sale Deed relied upon by the Reference Court was the very Sale Deed by which the review petitioners had purchased the property that was ultimately acquired. Therefore, based on the observations relied, no case is made out for review.
Mr. Usgaonkar, then tried to urge that there were no sale instances and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer, should not have relied upon any previous awards. Again, this contention is neither comprehensible nor is a good ground for exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed without any orders for costs.