JUDGMENT C.V. Bhadang, J. - This is an application for review of order dated 4 March 2020 in Writ Petition No.2133 of 2020. 2. I have heard Ms.Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused record. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a photo pass granted in favour of the grand father of the Petitioner which shows that the grand father was in possession of a separate structure. It is submitted that there were two structures standing at the site in respect of one of the structures there was a survey and the name of the father of the Petitioner (since deceased) has been included in the Annexure-II in the year 2008. 4. It is submitted that the concerned society had given a letter on 14 October 2016 to the Deputy Collector intimating that one of the structures was not surveyed which was in possession of the applicant. 5. The learned counsel has referred to the ration card standing in the name of the deceased father of the Petitioner. It is submitted that there were separate ration card issued which would also indicate that there were two structures. It is submitted that these documents have not been considered by the Competent Authority. 6. I have carefully considered the circumstances and the submissions made. In this case the Annexure-II was finalized in the year 2008 in which the father of the petitioner (since deceased) is held to be eligible at Serial No.1035 in respect of Hut No.1033. The Petitioner for the first time in the year 2016 sought the correction of the Annexure-II which was rejected by the Respondent-Grievance Redressal Committee in appeal under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearing and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. 7. This Court after considering the fact that there was no challenge to the Annexure-II from the year 2008 to 2016 and after finding that there can be different documents in favour of the occupants in respect of the same structure showing the identity proof, had found that no case for interference is made at this distance of time. 8. In my considered view the grounds raised have already been considered while rejecting the Writ Petition No.2133 of 2020. The photo pass as noticed earlier is in the name of the grand father of the applicant and the father of the applicant has already been held eligible. 8. In my considered view the grounds raised have already been considered while rejecting the Writ Petition No.2133 of 2020. The photo pass as noticed earlier is in the name of the grand father of the applicant and the father of the applicant has already been held eligible. It is now well settled that a Review is not a rehearing of the matter. The applicant has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record. The Review Application is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.