Uttam Vishram Dhoke & Ors. v. Pramod Tukaram Dhoke & Ors.

Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar a/w Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire for the Petitioners. Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.9 to 11/State. __________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 08 MAY 2025. P.C.:

The Petition is filed seeking review of judgment and order dated 11 March 2025. It is pointed out that this Court has taken a view in paragraph 13 of the judgment that Girijabai, being a widow could not have purchased the suit property at Serial No.A during her lifetime and the same could only have been purchased by her children after her death. Reliance is now sought to be placed on judgment of Cor-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre vs. Mahadeo Vittal Mandhre & Anr. 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 723 in support of contention that there is nothing under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) which restricts the katkam Page No. 2 1 of k 2/2 907 rpw 92.25 in wp as.doc right of widow to purchase the land during her lifetime. It is contended that this Court has taken a view in Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre (supra) that a beneficial provision is made under which the successors in title of a widow are also granted a right to purchase the land after widow’s death in the event purchase does not take place during widow widow’s lifetime. It is contended that therefore widow’s right of purchase of tenanted land during her lifetime is expressly recognized in judgment of this Court in Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre (supra).

However the judgment in Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre (supra) was not relied on while deciding the Petition. Now review of the judgment cannot be sought by the Petitioners by attempting to get wiser by relying on additional precedents. Even otherwise judgment of this Court in Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre (supra) cannot cited in support of an abstract proposition that in every case widow would be entitled to purchase tenanted land during her lifetime contrary to the provisions of Section 32F of the Tenancy Act.

I therefore find that no ground is made out for review of the judgment and order. Review Petition is filed and argued as if it is an Appeal in disguise. Review Petition is accordingly rejected. SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM katkam (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Page No. 2 2 of