A
B
c
D
E
F
G
KONDOPANT
v.
ARJUNA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
fK. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Review Petition-Raising of additional grounds in-Held not a ground
for review.
While disposing the appeal this Court stated that the declaration of
the respondent, the petitioner herein, as a surplus holder under the Land
Ceiling Act was correct and he may file a review petition- in case he was
found to be within the ceiling limit.
Dismissing the review petition, this Court
HELD : The act of declaration as a surplus holder is not disputed
in the review petition. But additional grounds have been raised. Therefore,
that would not be a ground to review the order. [583-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 1347
of 1995.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 1978
From the .Judgment and Order dated 11.7.78 of the Bombay High
Court in F.A. NO. 155 of 1971.
S.V. Desh Pande for the Petitioner/Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
In our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh,
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No. 5 and
also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared
to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land
Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to· the appellants. Since counsel
H for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported
582
....
KONDOP ANT v. ARJUNA
583
that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response A
from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a
surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling
limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two
months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But
additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not B.
be a ground for us to review the order.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.
Lex