1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION No. 13 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 494 of 2009 M/s. Shelvik Agencies ...Petitioner v/s. MHADA ...Respondent Senior Counsel D.D.Madon a/w. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf Neville Majra i/b. Yusufs & Associates, Advocates for the Petitioners. Shri D.A.Nalawade, GP for the State. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED:- August 10, 2009. P.C. By this application the Petitioner has prayed that the order dated 12th February, 2009 passed by this Bench needs to be reviewed for the reason that it has been recorded in the order that at no point of time, the Petitioners have disclosed the fact that they were dispossessed from the property in question. Further, the Court has observed that the conduct of the Petitioner would dis- 2 entitle the Petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 2. The Application is contested by the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. It has been stated on behalf of the State that the time of taking possession had been incorrectly mentioned as 11.00 p.m. Infact, it was 11.00 a.m. and before the order passed by the Court dated 22nd September, 2008 was served, the Petitioners have been dispossessed from the property in question. 3. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy, we have perused the record of the State where the possession Panchnama has been shown and as per the Panchnama the possession was taken on 22nd September, 2008 at 11.00 a.m.. 4. Again there is no doubt about that the Petitioner had lodged this Petition on 20/9/2008 but it had come up for hearing on 22nd September, 2008. Ad- interim stay in terms of prayer clause (c) was passed by the Court on 22nd September, 2008. According to the Respondents, this order was served upon the State at 4.40 p.m.. By that time the Petitioners had already been dispossessed. 5. We may notice that in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State, these facts were averred. Thereafter, another affidavit was also filed on 23rd January, 2009 wherein it has been stated in Paragraph-3 that possession of the property has been taken on 22nd September, 2008 and thereafter the Petitioner on the very next day i.e. 23rd September, 2009 trespassed on the said plot of land and forcibly removed the security personnel and a Police report in that regard was 3 lodged. Though the facts stated in this affidavit are disputed but we have taken the view on the basis of the affidavits filed and record produced before us. 6. From the records and affidavits filed on behalf of the State, we do not see any reason for reviewing our order. Review Petition dismissed. Interim stay of the order refused. CHIEF JUSTICE D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J