(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION LODGING NO.24 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.847 OF 2004 Mansingh K. Patel ...Petitioner Vs. Rauf Lanjekar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr.K.V. Kandekar i/b.Mayur Narendra & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. G.D.Utangale i/b. Utangale & Co., for S.R.A. Mr. R.S. Datar for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr. Karnik for Reliance Enterprises Mr. S.M. Shinde with Mr. R.M. Patne for R.M.Properties. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 25TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 25TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 25TH JANUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this review application the Applicants have moved this Court for recalling the order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by this Court. Our attention is invited to the following paragraph:- "Mr. Walawalkar, appearing for the original petitioners has no objection to the State being relieved of the said statement made earlier. He however, makes a request that the transit accommodation are required to be (-2-) made at the earliest and the project should be completed within a stipulated period. Mr.Karnik, made a statement that the project will be completed within a period of thirty months and we hope that it is completed expeditiously as assured. In the meanwhile arrangement for transit accommodation be made so as to cause least inconvenience to the occupants of the said plot." Learned Counsel on behalf of the review applicants submits that this Court passed an order based on wrong submissions. It is submitted that the land which is sought to be developed being C.T.S. No.16 to 19 as also 26 of village Oshiwara has no connection with the other land which is at a distance. It is also pointed out that apart from those C.T.S. numbers there are other C.T.S. numbers namely 9, 10, 13 and 15 which are adjoining. It is submitted that the Review Applicants themselves intend to submit plans for development of the area as in so far as they are concerned the land on which they are occupying are not notified slums and as such the Government could not have developed those lands along with the other lands for which the scheme was sanctioned. Learned Counsel for the review applicants on a query as to what is their legal right to develop the land, the learned Counsel (-3-) has been unable to show that the Review Applicants have any right. It appears that the Review Applicants are occupying the land which were acquired by the Government in the year 1988 from its owner. That being the case at the highest what the review applicant would be entitled to would be rehabilitation as their structures exist on the land. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government stating that all those persons who are eligible in terms of the Government Policy would be accommodated. 2. Once that be the case in our opinion though all the facts may not have been placed before this Court this would not be a case where we should exercise our review jurisdiction. In the light of that review application disposed of. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)