1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8387 OF 2007 Shri.Uddhav Nivrutti Kathe. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The Deputy/Addl.Commissioner & Competent Authority under Urban Land(Ceiling & regulation)Act, 1976, Nashik & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.N.M.Sathaye, for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondents 1, 1A, 2(a & b) & 4. Ms.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar, for Respondent no.3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges 2 the notification issued under Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & regulation) Act. The relevant facts are that after the proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the land was declared as surplus from the holdings of the petitioner. A notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 17.8.2006 which is dated 4.5.2006, calling objections to the proposal for delimitation of land in excess of the ceiling limit. Thirty days time was given from the date of publication of the notification. It appears that the Additional Collector-Competent authority without waiting for thirty days issued notification on 29.8.2006. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner states that because the notification has been issued within the period of thirty days which was allowed for raising objections, the notification is invalid. In our opinion, this objection in view of the conduct of the petitioner is deemed to be waived by the petitioner. If, according to the petitioner, the notification dated 29.8.2006 was invalid the petitioner had an option of either challenging it before this Court, appellate 3 authority/revisional authority immediately or the petitioner could have gone back to the competent authority and requested the competent authority to withdraw the notification because it has been issued within the period of thirty days allowed for raising objections. The petitioner did not do any of these things instead he filed an application before the Competent authority dated 27.9.2006 referring therein to the notification dated 29.8.2006. But in that application, there is no objection raised on the ground that it has been issued within a period of thirty days. Period of thirty days is allowed so that the land owner can file objections. If the land owner does not file any objections or does not make any grievance that he has not been given sufficient time for raising objections, in our opinion, he cannot make grievance thereafter, that he has been given short time to lodge objections. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he waived the objection to the notification. 2. What is pertinent to note is that the petitioner did not make any grievance about the 4 notification having been issued within thirty days. His objection was on the ground that his scheme under Section 20 of the Act is pending, and therefore, the notification should not have been issued. The learned Counsel himself fairly stated that there is no prohibition on the authority to proceed and issue notification under Section 10 of the Act only because the Scheme under Section 20 of the Act is pending. Then the learned Counsel submits that he has amended the petition after repeal of the Act on 1.12.2007. According to him, the notifications have lapsed because of repeal of the Act. What is pertinent to be noted is that though the amendment in the petition incorporated after the Act is repealed, there is no prayer made in the petition for setting aside the notifications on the ground that the Act has been repealed. What is pertinent to note is that if the physical possession of the land is taken by the Government then in spite of the repeal of the Act, the proceeding continue. There is categorical statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government dated 15.2.2008 stating therein that possession of the land was taken by the Government on 5 28.9.2007. Though this affidavit is received by the petitioner on 15.2.2008, there is no rejoinder filed disputing this statement made in the affidavit. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner sought time to file rejoinder. We put it to him that as his request for time to file rejoinder is made after the Court has spent considerable time in hearing the petition, the petitioner will have to pay substantial cost to the Government for unnecessarily consuming the Court's time. The learned Counsel expressed inability to agree to pay the cost. In our opinion, considering the heavy expenditure that is being incurred by the public exchequer for maintaining the Courts, the Court will have to take strict view of the matter when adjournment in the matter is sought after Court hearing the matter for considerable length of time, because one of the major cause for increasing pendency in the Courts is adjournment of the matters after they are heard by the Courts for a considerable length of time. In view of the inability expressed by the learned Counsel to pay cost, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to grant adjournment. In view of the clear statement 6 made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government that the possession of the land was taken before repeal of the Act, in the absence of any rejoinder, it cannot be said that the possession has been taken after repeal of the act. As the possession has been taken before repeal of the Act, the repeal is not relevant. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, there is no substance in the petition. The petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---