Bombay High Court

RAM GANPATI DHULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: AJIT B KADETHANKAR

Holding

A subsequent judgment or change in law does not justify a review under Order XLVII of the CPC, so the review is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner’s land in Waradi village was acquired for the Upper Penganga Project and he received compensation, which he challenged in a Land Acquisition Reference proceeding. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation, but the petitioner was dissatisfied and filed First Appeal No.361 of 1993, which the High Court dismissed on merits on 1 September 2024. The petitioner later sought a review, arguing that the court had subsequently granted enhancements to other landholders in similar cases and that this should affect his case. The court held that under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, a later judgment or change in law does not constitute a ground for review. Consequently, the review application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a subsequent judgment granting enhancement to other landholders provides a ground for review of a dismissed appeal under Order XLVII of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
review petition
Order XLVII CPC
enhancement
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12806



                                                                         11-sr915.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            REVIEW APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2023
                             IN FIRST APPEAL NO.361 OF 1993

                                      Ram Ganpati Dhule
                                              vs.
                               The State of Maharashtra and anr.

                                              ----
            Mr.S.K.Adkine, Advocate for applicant
            Mr.A.A.A.Khan, AGP for respondents
                                              ----

                                      CORAM :        AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :        MARCH 24, 2026

            ORDER :-

                       The petitioner’s land bearing survey nos.34/5 and 34/9

            admeasuring 20 Gunthas and 3 Acres and 11 Gunthas respectively

            situated at village Waradi, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli was acquired by

            the respondents/authorities for Upper Penganga Project.     The award

            was declared and the petitioner was held entitled for certain

            compensation.     The petitioner has taken that compensation in

            challenge in the Land Acquisition Reference proceedings.            The

            Reference Court after assessing the evidence on record granted certain

            enhancement. Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation,

            the petitioner had preferred First Appeal No.361 of 1993 in this court.

            This Court vide order dated 01.09.2024 after hearing all the parties,
                                    2                            11-sr915



dismissed the First Appeal on merits.         The said order is not

challenged by the petitioner in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.



2.          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner extensively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently

on 16.01.2009 this court allowed the some First Appeals filed by the

other stake holders whose lands were the subject-matter of the some

land acquisition award proceedings. He would submit that since the

other land holders have been granted enhancement by this court in

the subsequent judgment, the judgment and order passed by this

court on 01.09.2024 in First Appeal No.361 of 1993 be reviewed.



3.          The review of an order or judgment is governed by Order

XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is trite law that a subsequent

judgment or subsequent change in law will not justify the review

proceedings in Order XLVII of C.P.C. In that view of the matter, the

review stands dismissed.



                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..


KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…