1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.206 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1521 OF 2010 Umadevi D Dangat & ors. : Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. Shri Nitin Muley i/by Mr.Girish Godbole for the Petitioner. Smt. P S Cardoza, AGP for the Respondents/State CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 30th June 2010. P.C. 1 This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the initiation of the revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said proceedings. In the instant case the order under Section 8(4) was passed on 27/12/2002, the first hearing pursuant to the notice of sue moto revision was fixed on 29/9/2007 and, the revisional order was passed on 31/10/2007. Hence there is a delay of about five years. 2 The revisional order dated 31/10/2007 is also challenged on the ground that the Revisional Authority could not have, in its revisional jurisdiction, issued the directions that it has issued in the matter of levying penalty for regularising the construction carried out on the lands declared as surplus vacant lands. 2 3 In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on aforesaid grounds of inordinate delay and the levy of penalty is concerned, the said issue is no more res- integra and is concluded by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6th May 2010, (to which one of us P B Majmudar, J was a party) in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. By the said judgment, the revisional order in the said case was quashed on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said revisional proceedings as also on the ground that the revisional authority could not have issued directions of levying penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner for regularising the construction on the surplus vacant land. 4 Since in the instant case revisional proceedings were initiated after a period of about five years, for the view that the Division Bench of this Court has taken in the Judgment (Supra), the above Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. 5 In the light of the above order, the Civil Application No.1521 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [R M SAVANT,J] [P B MAJMUDAR,J]