1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9216 OF 2007 ... Mrs.Sujata A. Nadhe & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b P.M.Arjunwadkar for the Petitioners. Mr.G.H.Keluskar for Respondent No.4. Ms.J.S.Pawar, Addl.G.P. For State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:26th November, 2009 P.C.: 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 2. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order dated 31st October, 2007 passed by the Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra setting aside the order dated 23-2-1999 passed by the Competent Authority and directing the Petitioner to pay the price of the land at the rate which is mentioned in the ready-recknor within a period of 30 days and this amount is described as the amount of penalty. It is also observed in the order that if the amount of penalty is not paid within 30 days then prosecution under Section 38 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act should be initiated. 3. The relevant facts are that after commencement of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, by an order dated 26-3-1999 passed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the competent 3 authority it was declared that the Petitioner does not hold any excess land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner entered into development agreement and the development was carried out on the land. Buildings constructed on the land were sold to various persons. On 8-8-2007 for the first time the Petitioner received a notice sent by the competent authority asking the Petitioner to appear before the Chief Minister on 13-8-2007 for hearing in relation to the order passed under Section 8(4) by the Competent Authority in relation to his land. The Petitioner pursuant to this notice appeared before the Chief Minister and filed his reply pointing out that after the order was made on 26-3-1999 a permission for development of the land was sought from the Municipal Corporation and the Corporation sanctioned the lay out plan on 18-12-2001. 4 Permission was also sought from the authorities for using the land for non- agricultural purpose, which was granted. Thereafter, the land was developed and the land with the development was sold. Therefore, it was requested that in view of this position it will not be appropriate for the State Government to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 34. The State Government disposed of the revisional proceedings by order dated 31-12-2007. The State Government set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 26-3-1999 and held that because now the land has already been developed and 3rd party rights are created, the Petitioner and the Developer should pay price of the land. 4. The first submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that 5 pursuant to show cause notice at Exh. T, which does not disclose any reason why the State Government wants to revise the order, no order could have been passed. He submits that in any case in view of the developments that have taken place and third party rights created, it was not appropriate for the State Government to initiate revisional proceedings after about eight years of passing of the order. He further submits that even assuming that the State Government was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority declaring that there is no surplus land in the holding of the Petitioner, then also matter ought to have been gone back to the Competent Authority for determination of the surplus land and even assuming that the State Government has power to recover any compensation, then direction could have made only in relation to the land 6 which is declared as surplus. He further submits that in any case there is no provision in the Urban Land Ceiling Act empowering the State Government to recover any compensation at the market rate from the land holder. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also. 6. The only explanation given on behalf of the Respondent is that the order dated 26-3-1999 passed by the Competent Authority was not in accordance with law and therefore, the State Government was justified in making the order which is impugned in the Petitions. 7. We have examined the record of the case in the light of the rival submissions. We find that, keeping all other points aside, 7 even assuming that the State Government had power to recover any compensation from the land holder, the compensation could have been recovered only in relation to the land which is declared as surplus. For declaration of any land as surplus, there has to be an order made by the Competent Authority under Section 8 of the Act. Even assuming that the State Government while exercising the revisional jurisdiction can declare that certain land is surplus, we find in the order impugned that the State Government has neither declared any land as surplus nor has directed the competent authority to declare any land as surplus. In our opinion, therefore, the Government could not have directed recovery of any compensation from the Petitioner in the absence of any declaration of surplus land. It is further to be seen here that the order was passed on 31st October, 2007, 8 whereas the Urban Land Ceiling Act has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 29-11-2007. Therefore, now even passing of an order declaring any land as surplus is not possible because Act itself has been repealed. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there is no provision in the Act for imposition of any penalty on the land holder and permitting the State Government to recover price of the land at the market rate as penalty. We also find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel that in view of the intervening events the State Government was not justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction after expiry of a period of eight years. We find that the State Government was not at all justified in making 9 the order in its revisional jurisdiction. The procedure that has been adopted by the State Government in passing the order, in our opinion, can also not be said to be in compliance with the requirement of natural justice. 8. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R The order dated 31-10-2007 made by the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra and the order dated 17-11-2007 demanding Rs. 12,36,00,000/- as compensation pursuant to the order dated 31-10-2007 are set aside; Rule made absolute. No order as to costs; (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)