JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The review of the judgment dated 05.05.2022 has been sought on two grounds: firstly, the agreements involved in the petition were purely development agreements and therefore, could not have been interpreted to be having characteristics of a conveyance and as such, were beyond the scope of the Article 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short “Stamp Act”). The second ground, relates to a general statement made in paragraph No.14 that since, the stamp duty payable on the development agreement is the duty which is payable on conveyance under Article 25 of the Stamp Act a development agreement would have to be treated at par with an instrument of conveyance and therefore, it is an instrument which is squarely covered by the notification dated 28.08.2020.

3. It is submitted by Shri.Anand Parchure, learned Special Counsel that a development agreement cannot be considered to be same as the conveyance under Article 25 of the Stamp Act and therefore generally it cannot be said to be covered by the notification dated 28.08.2020.

4. Shri.S. N.Shukul, learned counsel appearing for the non applicant submits that both these submissions have already been considered by t