1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2167 OF 2009 Mr.Chandraprakash Bhalchandra Purandare and ors. : Petitioners versus Deputy Collector, & Competent Authority ULC, Gr.Mumbai & ors. : Respondents. Mr.A P Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Smt.P S Cardoza AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18th June 2010 P.C. 1 By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners seek a declaration that the order passed under Section 8(4) dated 26.4.1988 and the Notifications issued under section 10(1), 10(3) as well as Notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 have become inoperative in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is undisputed that the Notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were issued in respect of the land in question after the scheme under Section 20(1) of the ULC Act was cancelled by the State Government. The Petitioners in the above Petition seek to raise a dispute 2 as regards the receipt of the notice under section 10(5) of the said Act. It is the case of the Petitioners relying upon non-supply of the information vide a letter dated 8 th April 2010 of the Public Information Officer and the Nayab Tahasildar, Brihanmumbai addressed to him that the information as to when the notice under section 10(5) was served upon the Petitioner was not available though a copy of the said notice was available in the office. Based on the said communication, it is the case of the Petitioner that no notice under section 10(5) of the said Act was served upon the Petitioner stands substantiated. 3 In so far as the benefit of the Repeal Act is concerned, this Court in Voltas Ltd. and another v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors. reported in 2000(5), Bom.C.R. 746, has held that in cases where the possession has not been taken, the benefit of the Repeal Act would be available to such land holders. In the instant case, the possession has been obtained by the State Government on 9 th February 2007 by drawing a panchanama. The said panchanama has been appended to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents by one Purushottam Babu Bhoir, Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Greater Mumbai. Though the Petitioners seek to raise a issue as regards the manner in which the possession has been 3 taken, in our view, the said ground raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by us in our writ jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 In so far as issue as to whether the Petitioners had received the notice or not, this Court would have to go by the record and the statements made in the affidavit and the documents annexed to the same, which disclose that possession has been taken. If the Petitioner has any grievance about manner in which the possession was taken and the record in support thereof, the Petitioners may file appropriate civil proceedings in that behalf. We express no opinion on merits of such a claim if such proceedings are filed by the Petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the above Petition. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]