Bombay High Court
CA/1993/2026 of SHARIF ABBAS BAGWAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1993 OF 2026 IN RAST/1530/2026 WITH RAST/1530/2026 SHARIF ABBAS BAGWAN AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Swapnil
1993.2026CA+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1993 OF 2026
IN RAST/1530/2026
WITH
RAST/1530/2026
SHARIF ABBAS BAGWAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Swapnil A. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Wakale
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 8th OCTOBER, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
Civil Application No. 1993 of 2026
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 26 days caused in filing the Review Application.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Review Application (Civil) (St.) No.1530 of 2026
1. The review application filed by the applicant is misconceived. Admittedly, the applicant was not party to the order dated 15th February, 1985 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Appeal and Revision, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, in Revenue Revision No. CON-3983/580/3138/L-1, by which the correction in area in respect of Gut No.234 of village Wadikalya, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna was directed. 2026:BHC-AUG:47912-DB
1993.2026CA+.odt
2. By the order under review, the respondents were directed to correct the area, as per the original consolidation scheme, in respect of Gut No.234. Admittedly the applicant was not party to the Writ Petition also.
3. In the light of above, we find no merit in the review application. The review application is misconceived. The applicant has wrongly approached this Court, whereas his remedy lies elsewhere.
4. Review Application is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the applicant to avail of an appropriate remedy. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.) sga