*1* rpw.61.11.wp.4014.11.904.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.61 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4014 OF 2011 Baby Verghese (Priest of Church). ..Petitioner -Versus- Deputy Collector (Encroachment & Removal) and others. ..Respondents .......... Smt.Shabana F. Sothe, for the Petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Kapse, for the Respondent No.2. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 19th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This petition seeks review of the order dated 10.06.2011. 2 In the order passed on 10.06.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4014/2011, which Writ Petition questioned the orders dated 25.10.2010 and 10.05.2011, it has been held that the Petitioner could not substantiate the claim for residential structure which is distinct from that of a Church and further that the Petitioner’s demand for alternate permanent accommodation for a Church building has also not found favour. All throughout, the existence of a Church being disputed, it was held that the Petitioner could not substantiate the claim as far as eligibility for residential accommodation, as also, for religious structure. 3 In the review petition, it is urged that by virtue of letter issued in the year 1993 in favour of the Petitioner by the parent Church, it *2* rpw.61.11.wp.4014.11.904.sxw is clear that the Church was existing at site. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had baptized certain individuals and introduced to the Christian faith at this very Church. The existence of a Church is sought to be established during the hearing of this review petition. 4 In my view, this exercise is impermissible in the review jurisdiction. Firstly, the Petitioners could not substantiate at earlier stage that the religious structure was existing in the form of church. The official records do not indicate that any such religious structure was existing at site. In these circumstances, while considering a limited challenge in this petition, at earlier stage, this Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority and now in the review petition, for the first time, it cannot be decided as to whether, the church was really existing at site or not. If the Petitioner has any such claim, nothing prevents the Petitioner in establishing and proving it in the competent court. The scope of review jurisdiction is very limited and the request to recall the order on the ground that the Petitioner is entitled for alternate accommodation in the form of religious structure, cannot be accepted. 5 For all these reasons, the review petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)