1 wp-4845-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4845 OF 2010 Smt. Barkubai Dagdu Mundhe .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar for petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 15, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. 2 wp-4845-10 3. Mr. Patil, the learned AGP, waives service for the respondents. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane. Petition is heard finally. 4. The predecessors of the petitioner i.e. Smt.Sitabai Rama Patil and others were the owners of land in Survey Nos.6/4, 6/10, 84/14, 6/3, 6/7 (Part), 6/12, 14/5, 73/15+16 and 16/1 of village Nandivali, Taluka Kalyan, District – Thane and they had submitted return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act). After holding an enquiry, the respondent no.2 passed an order on 7/1/1997 under Section 8(4) of the Act and declared land to the extent of 7244.98 sq.mtrs. As surplus land. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was, however, issued belatedly on 6/10/2005 and it was followed by another notification under Section 10(3) of the Act dated 27/2/2006. The notice under Section 10(5) of the Act seeking possession of the surplus land from the land holders was issued on 6/5/2006 and they were called upon to hand over the possession of the surplus land by 6/6/2006 to the City Survey Officer. Instructions were also given to the Tahsildar to take possession of the land, but for some or the other reasons, the possession of the surplus land, as 3 wp-4845-10 declared, was not taken till the Act was repealed on 29/11/2007. 5. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for orders to quash and set aside the notifications referred to herein-above as well as the notice of possession dated 6/5/2006 in respect of the land admeasuring 7244.98 sq.mtrs. from Surve Nos. 6/4, 6/10, 84/14, 6/3, 6/7 (Part), 6/12, 14/5, 73/15+16 and 16/1 of village Nandivali, Taluka Kalyan, District – Thane. In support of this relief, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and ors. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration and ors [ 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746]. 6. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the factual position, including that the possession of the surplus land, so declared way back in 1997, remained with the petitioner all along and till this date. Consequently, the petition must succeed and needless to mention that a number of petitions have been allowed by this court by following the law laid down in Voltas’s case. 4 wp-4845-10 7. Hence, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Resultantly, the petitioner is at liberty to take all the appropriate steps for deletion of the entry in the 7x12 extract. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)