ssp 1 RPW(L) 18 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.18 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2010 Rufina Nazereth Pires and Ors. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.M.M.Vashi i/by Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for the petitioners. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 & 5 to 9. Mr.Abhishek Pungliya i/by M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for respondent No.3. Mr.V.B.Naik with Mr.Bhavik Manek i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 21 st JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this review petition, petitioners have prayed for reviewing the order passed by us on 24th February, 2011, by which we have dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. In our order, we have observed that the petitioners have failed to point out any valid document showing the title of the petitioners in connection with subject matter of the disputed property. By way of this review petition, petitioners want to rely upon certain documents to prove their title. 2. In our view, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot be expected to go into the title by ssp 2 RPW(L) 18 of 2011 deciding the rival claims of the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed property. If the petitioners have any valid documents to prove their title, it is open to them to approach competent civil court to prove their title and get declaration in this behalf. Surely, this Court cannot decide such a highly disputed questions of fact by taking additional documents on record in this behalf and to find out whether petitioners are having valid title over the disputed property. Such disputed questions of title is required to be decided after hearing the rival claims of both the sides in accordance with law and on this aspect, we are not expressing any opinion in any manner. It is needless to say that if any such suit is filed, it is be decided independently on its own merits and uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court while deciding the above writ petition. 3. In view of what is stated above, the review petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )