1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4540 OF 2008 ... Shri Harishchandra V. Bhoir ..Petitioner v/s. The Addl.Collector & Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & ors. ..Respondents .. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:3rd December, 2009 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By an order under Sub-Section 4 of 2 Section 8 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, land admeasuring 22980-75 sq.meters was declared as surplus from the holding of Kashinath. The present Petitioners are his legal representatives. He died on 16-7-1996 and Mutation Entry in the Revenue Record to that effect was taken on 30th August, 1996. His successors were his son Mr.Vasant and widow Smt.Kashibai. Widow Kashibai died on 28-7-1998 and son Vasant died on 8-3-1999. Mutation entries were taken in the Revenue record on 30th August, 2000. On 23-2-2004, notification under sub-Section 1 of Section 10 was issued in relation to the surplus land declared by order made under Section 8, in the name of the dead person namely Kashinath. Then a declaration under sub-section 3 of Section 10 was made on 30-11-2005 again in the name of dead person Shri.Kashinath. Notice of possession under sub-section 5 of 3 Section 10 was given on 21-4-2006 again in the name of same dead person. The case of the Petitioners is that though notice under sub- section 5 of Section 10 was given, actual possession was not taken till 29-11-2007 when the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and therefore, according to the Petitioner all further proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in relation to the land of the Petitioners lapsed. The Petitioners have made a categorical statement that they are in possession of the land. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. There is no specific denial of the statement in the reply that the Petitioner are in possession. On the contrary, averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondent clearly suggests that the 4 Petitioners are in possession of the land. In any case we find that as notices under Sections 10(1), 10(3) & 10(5) were not given to the Petitioners, who were owners of the land, possession could not have been taken and therefore, in view of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. v/s. Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746 , petition will have to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)