1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2009 IN W.P.NO. 2277 OF 2008 Ms.Leela Mohan Das,Mumbai ..Appellant Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai and three others ..Respondents .... Mr.H.S.Anand along with Mrs.Sarita Donde for Appellant Mr.G.D.Utangale i/b Utangale and Co. for Respondent No.1 Mrs.Madhubala Kajale AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 Ms.Shakuntala Mudbidri for Respondent No.3 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Anand, the learned counsel for the 2 appellant, who is aggrieved by the order dated 6/4/2009 thereby dismissing Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2008. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that (i) the documents dated 7/10/1993 and 21/9/1993 indicate that tenement No. HEG 25-16/16 was sold by Rehmatullah to the petitioner ’s son Shri Inder Singh Hira Singh Bisht, (ii) that the tenement was sub-divided unauthorizedly into two portions and (iii) the authorities below had noticed that the petitioner ’s husband has already been allotted a tenement on the basis of his claim and that the petitioner was residing with her husband during the relevant period. It was further observed that to get over this position of cohabitation, a false plea of divorce was set up by the petitioner on the basis of an affidavit executed on 13/12/1993 and subsequently she took the plea of divorce by mutual consent in the year 2005. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that these observations are factually incorrect and more so regarding the title of the petitioner to tenement No. HEG 25-16-16 and it was asserted that it is not the petitioner ’s son who purchased the said tenement but it was petitioner herself. If this appeal is based on the sole contentions 3 that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order are contrary to the records, at the first instance, the remedy for the petitioner is to file a review petition in Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2008. 4. Hence, this writ appeal is disposed with liberty to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge with a review petition. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]