1 RPL No. 23.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 23 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2277 OF 2008 Ms.Leela Mohan Das ... Petitioner Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors .... Respondents Mr. H.S. Anand along with Mrs. Sarita Donde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.A. Mudbidri, Advocate for R. No.3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 P.C. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents. 2. My attention is invited to the factual position noted in Para 2 of the order passed by the Appellate Bench dated 25.1.2010. It appears that grievance was made before the Appellate Bench that factual position noticed by me in the earlier order dated 6.4.2009 is incorrect. Firstly it is contended that the finding was recorded that disputed property was sold by Rahimtulla to Petitioner’s son Indersingh Bisht, whereas the record would indicate that the property was sold to the Petitioner. 2 RPL No. 23.10 Taking this argument, firstly the Petitioner relies on the document at Page 36 of the original Petition, it is an affidavit executed by Rahimtulla Sadaulla and Smt.Leela Hirasingh Bisht. Relying on this document, it is argued that the property was sold to Petitioner and not to her son. This argument will have to be rejected. The finding recorded by me was after considering the reply filed by the respondents and the documents produced on record by the respondents which were considered by high power committee. The affidavit which was considered by the high power committee on the stamp paper issued on 16.9.1993, which is Exhibit 1 to the reply affidavit dated 30th January, 2009. The said affidavit is executed by Mr. Rahimtulla Sadaulla and Mr. Indersingh Hirasingh Bisht which would suggest that the disputed property was sold in favour of Indersingh Bisht, namely, son of the Petitioner. It is this document which was held to be decisive to reject the claim of the Petitioner. There is no error apparent committed by the court while proceeding to decide the matter on the basis of the said document relied by the respondents. If the property was already sold in favour of Indersingh Bisht in 1993, the same property could not have been sold by Rahimtulla in favour of the Petitioner herein which is the tenor of the document relied by the Petitioner at Page 36. The said document therefore, cannot be the basis to answer the controversy on hand. Besides, what has been noticed from the record is that the Petitioners son after purchasing the property has divided the property into two parts. On the basis of the said division, petitioner claims right to be allotted alternative accommodation in lieu of the original property. Petitioner’s son has already been allotted one unit as per his entitlement. Suffice it to observe that there is no error apparent committed by the Court while rejecting the petition on the earlier occasion. 3 RPL No. 23.10 Hence, no case for review. Review Petition is dismissed. (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)