The Bombay High Court's dismissal of Review Petition No. 142 of 2025 underscores the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and the sanctity of judicial finality. The Court held that CIDCO's claim of newly discovered evidence was a ruse, as the documents in question were already part of the record in earlier proceedings. This judgment serves as a cautionary tale against attempts to re-agitate settled disputes under the guise of review, particularly when no error apparent on the face of the record exists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute revolves around land bearing Survey No. 59/8 admeasuring 35,210 square meters in Village Asudgaon, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (Subject Property). The land was notified for acquisition under the New Bombay project by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO). The original owner, Gangadhar Vishnu Puranik, had three sons: Ashok Gangadhar Puranik, Atul Gangadhar Puranik, and Anand Gangadhar Puranik. Upon Gangadhar's demise, the land mutated in the names of the three brothers. Anand passed away on October 20, 2023, leaving his son Ranjit Anand Puranik as his legal heir.
Key Facts
- The Subject Property was part of a family dispute covered under Civil Suit No. 339 of 1970 (CS 339), involving partition of ancestral property.
- A Settlement Agreement dated August 3, 1996 discharged the Court Receiver in respect of lands acquired by CIDCO, including the Subject Property.
- The Court Receiver was judicially held to have been discharged by an order dated January 20, 2003 (January 2003 Order).
- CIDCO claimed that the Subject Property was acquired in 1973, but no award or compensation details were produced despite multiple opportunities.
- Advance compensation was paid to Ashok, Atul, and Anand under CIDCO's incentive policy, but the State later demanded refunds, leading to coercive steps like freezing bank accounts.
- Ranjit filed multiple proceedings
