1 WP 4320 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4320 of 2005 Anwar Hussein J. Thim ..... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Durgaprasad S. Sabnis i/by Mr.Amit Saklikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13th July, 2010 P.C. 1. The question that arises for consideration in the above petition, is as to whether the petitioner can be subjected to the rigors of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and what would be the consequences of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, on the proceedings concerning the lands held by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Survey Nos.1, 7 and 8 of Village Pathardi, Nashik. The total lands encompassed under the said survey numbers are 19 Hectors and 60 Ares. On the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for the brevities sake, hereinafter referred to as the said Act), coming into force, the land holder on the basis of the zoning certificate granted to him by the Nashik Municipal 2 WP 4320 of 2005 Corporation, applied to the authorities under the said Act that the lands falling within the Nashik Urban Agglomeration, could not fall within the mischief of the said Act. It appears that the respondent No.3 in supersession of the application dated 07-05-1993, issued certificate stating that the said Act, would apply to the lands in question. Thereafter, the said certificate was objected to by the land holder, the respondent No.3 taking into consideration the objections, fixed a hearing on 18-04-1993. The matter was thereafter, referred to the State Government by the respondent No.3 on 30-04-1994. 3. Thereafter, the lands in question changed hands in as much as the original land owner Sakharam Donde, transferred the lands to the petitioner. The petitioner with a view to develop the said lands, applied to the respondents for development permission and change of user. The respondents insisted upon no objection certificate from the authorities under the said Act. The petitioner thereafter, was constrained to file application before respondent No.3, as regards the applicability of the said Act, to the lands in question. The respondent No.3 thereafter, was called upon by the respondent No.1 to decide the issue raised by the petitioner on merits. The respondent No.3 sought certain clarifications from the respondent No.1 and informed the petitioner that since the said clarifications are received, that he would decide the applicability of the 3 WP 4320 of 2005 said Act, qua the lands of the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.3 by an order dated 08-07-2003 held that the said Act, is applicable to the lands of the petitioner. This resulted in the petitioner challenging the said order dated 08-07-2003 by filing Writ Petition No.4800 of 2003 in this Court. This Court by an order dated 26-09-2003 directed the respondent i.e. Additional Collector & Competent Authority, to decide the application dated 22-01-2003 as regards the applicability of the said Act. Thereafter, by an order dated 01-12-2003, the respondent No.3 inter alia held that the said Act is applicable to the lands owned by the petitioner and therefore, he was required to file a statement under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 33 of the said Act, before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The appellate authority by its order dated 07-09-2004 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.3, thereby upholding the applicability of the said Act, directing the petitioner to file a statement under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The said orders i.e. the order passed by the respondent No.3 and the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, are impugned in the present petition. 5. During the pendency of the above petition for admission, a notice dated 17-12-2005 came to be issued to the petitioner that in the 4 WP 4320 of 2005 event he does not file a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act, he would be prosecuted under Section 38 of the said Act. The above petition was admitted and by way of interim relief, the effect of the said orders has been stayed, thereby the petitioner was not obligated to file a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act. The said notice dated 17-12-2005 was also stayed by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 12-06-2006. 6. During the pendency of the above petition, a defining event in the form of the Repeal of the said Act, by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, has taken place. In terms of the said repeal subject to the exceptions which have been carved out in the said Repeal Act, all proceedings stand abated. In the instant case, admittedly, the order passed by the respondent No.3, as confirmed by the appellate authority, has been stayed, thereby the petitioner was not required to file his statement under Section 6(1) of the said Act. In view of the repeal of the said Act, it would now not be necessary for the petitioner to follow the procedure prescribed under the said Act, as all the proceedings stand abated. The above petition is therefore, required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (j). Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )