PETTANNA BASHANNA YADAV DIED AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40109-DB


                                               1               901-CA 9995-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9995 OF 2026
                                             IN
                        REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026

                 Pettanna s/o Bashanna Yadav (Died)
                 Since Deceased
                 Santosh s/o Balanna Yadav And Others                     .. Applicants

                        Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra and others                      .. Respondents

                                           WITH
                        REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026

                 Pettanna s/o Bashanna Yadav (Died)
                 Since Deceased
                 Santosh s/o Balanna Yadav And Others                     .. Applicants

                        Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra and others                      .. Respondents

                 Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Applicants.
                 Smt. S. S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
                                        DATE       :   01st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9995 OF 2026 :

                 1.     Heard learned advocate Mr. Sabnis for the applicants and

                 learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                               2             901-CA 9995-2026.odt


2.    This civil application is filed seeking condonation of delay

caused in filing review application. The delay is of 44 days. No

notice is required to the Corporation since the delay is hardly of

44 days.


3.    For the reasons stated in the application, delay stands

condoned. The civil application is allowed. Office to register the

review application.


4.    With this, the civil application stands disposed of.


REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026 :

1.    An order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No. 12859/2016 with other connected civil applications is

sought to be reviewed by way of this application.


2.    Learned advocate Mr. Sabnis for the applicants vehemently

argued that this Court while passing the order has considered only

one prayer out of three substantive prayers i.e. prayer clauses C, D

and E. This Court while passing the order has only considered the

statement of Municipal Corporation that, in case, Corporation is

willing to widen the road from 65 ft. to 80 ft. it is in that case the

Corporation shall follow the procedure of law and acquire the
                               3             901-CA 9995-2026.odt


land. This Court has observed that the petition was premature.

Therefore, learned advocate submits that, in fact, land of the

applicants is taken in possession by the Corporation long back in

the year 1991. It is in that view a prayer was made that

acquisition proceeding be initiated for taking possession of the

land which is to the extent of 75 % of the lands of the petitioners.

Width of 65 ft. to 80 ft. if at all is made that will affect remaining

25% of the area of the land of the petitioners.


3.    At the outset, this Court made a query in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu

Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., (1997) 9 SCC

736 that the petition was argued by another advocate whereas,

the application is filed by the present advocate. He could not

answer except showing that the clients do not desire to go to

earlier advocate. This Court has consistently taken a view that the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &

Anr. (supra) has deprecated the practice of filing review through

advocate who was not an advocate when the original proceeding

was argued. In the present case, the petition was argued by

another advocate and the review application is filed by the present
                                   4             901-CA 9995-2026.odt


advocate. This view is consistently followed by this Court in the

following judgments :

     (i)     Bhupendra R. Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sakhubai S. Ghatal &
     Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 9298.

     (ii)    Shree Vaishnav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
     & Ors., Review Petition No. 31/2024 in W.P. No. 16145/2023
     (Principal Seat at Bombay).

     (iii)   Machindra Bhanudas Kulange & Ors. Vs. Suresh
     Kisanrao Gaikwad & Anr., Review Application No. 139/2022 in
     W.P. No. 2989/2016 (Aurangabad Bench).

     (iv)    Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar, (2020) 13 SCC 188.

     (v)     Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
     MANU/UP/0389/2026.


4.    Now, it is well settled that, when a review is filed it is to be

filed by the same advocate who had argued the main petition.

Considering all above, it is clear that the review needs to be filed

by the same advocate who argued the case or who was advocate

in the original proceeding. However, without going into that

aspect this Court finds that, this Court has considered the

submissions which were advanced before this Court at the

relevant time. There is nothing to show that as to what steps

applicants have taken after 1991 when allegedly the possession of

their property about 75% was taken by the Corporation. Even on
                               5            901-CA 9995-2026.odt


that ground this Court finds that, though the prayer is not

apparently considered it is the fact that the petitioners could not

satisfy the Court on that aspect.


5.       Considering above, this Court finds that no parameters of

section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made. There is no

merit in the review application. Therefore, the review application

stands dismissed.



( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)                ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.