IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 23 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 412 OF 2007 MR. SANDEEP G. DESSAI AND 10 ORS., ... Applicants Versus THE CHIEF OFFICER CURCHOREM CACORA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 5th September, 2008 P.C. When this Civil Review Application was placed before us and our attention was invited to the original petition and the affidavit in reply so also the annexures thereto, we brought it to the notice of the parties that the petition is by persons who are on private land and further if they claim to have been removed from the same or their right to carry on the business is affected by certain acts of the First Respondent Council, then, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit of the scheme of rehabilitation. This was on the basis that the scheme of rehabilitation is with regard to the people squatting on public land and not on private land. Further that is applicable to those who are in possession of a valid licence. 2. However, Mrs. Agni appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners were removed by the First Respondent Council in pursuance of certain directions of this Court and therefore, they were compelled to approach this Court and seek the benefit of the scheme of rehabilitation. 3. All these aspects are not projected in the petition and yet it is contended before us that although there are directions of this Court but some of the petitioners atleast, have not been touched and removed, because they are on private land. 4. In such circumstances we do not feel it necessary to entertain the Review Application. However, Mrs. Agni on behalf of the petitioners contended that if there are no proper documents annexed and those annexed are inadequate to project the grievance, the petitioners should not suffer. She contended that the directions of the Court are such that they apply only to the impediments which hamper the smooth flow of pedestrian traffic on the Pavement and Footpath. Be that as it may, we cannot go into these aspects. 5. In such circumstances, Mrs. Agni sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Corporation, requesting the Corporation to atleast rehabilitate the petitioners who have been removed from the land in their possession. 6. In the light of this statement by Mrs. Agni, we permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition instead of issuing any clarification in the limited jurisdiction. The Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The Review application does not survive. No orders as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. lh/.