1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 26 OF 2008 IN P.I.L . WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2006 Gavdevi Durga Devastan Trust ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Jayakar i/by M/s. Jayakars for the Petitioner Mr. R. Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General, with Ms. Bharati Mahant for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 2 and 5 Mr. Jariwala i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Respondent No.7 Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms. Laxmi Jasani i/by Mr. A.V. Jain for Respondent No. 8. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2008 P.C.:- Two Writ Petitions were filed. They were heard together and an order was passed on 6th February, 2008. 2. The main grievance in both the petitions was that although 2 Gillbert Hill was a heritage site, it was not being declared as such. The State contended that a decision to declare the hill to be a heritage site had already been taken, and the Notification would be gazetted in a week's time. On this assurance, the Writ Petitions were disposed of. 3. Now, a Review Petition is filed in P.I.L. Writ Petition No. 123 of 2006 on the ground that the name of the advocate, who appeared in the matter, was not shown in the cause list on the date the cases were disposed of. We have seen the cause list. It is not correct. Two names were shown. One of the names was of Mr. M.P. Vashi, and the other name was of Mr. Jayakar. Mr. Jayakar was not appearing in the matter. However, Mr. M.P. Vashi was appearing in the matter, and was the advocate-on-record. 4. In spite of that, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the relief granted by this Court was not the only relief claimed in the Writ Petition. Therefore, we have analyzed the reliefs claimed in P.I.L. Writ Petition No. 123 of 2006, and we are of the 3 view that all reliefs, except relief No. (a) (iii) and reliefs No. (d) and (e) were not granted by this Court, because all the reliefs, which were claimed in this petition, depended on the relief which has already been granted. 5. Relief No. (a) (iii) cannot be granted in the absence of the persons, who allegedly were in the process of building structures, and the structures were incomplete. In any case, the building activity must have come to an end after the Notification was gazetted. 6. Similarly, there is no necessity to grant prayers (d) and (e), because if any building had been constructed with appropriate legal permission before the area was declared to be a Heritage Site, its demolition canot be ordered. 7. We, however, clarify that the respondents shall take all steps that are necessary to maintain the heritage status of the Gillbert Hill and take the consequential steps which are necessary in view of the Notification declaring the hill to be a Heritage Site. 4 8. With this clarification, this Review Petition is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.