srk １ nm-1786-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1786 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.411 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1898 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2345 OF 1983 State of Maharashtra and another. ... Appellants Versus Adi Dara Patel and others. ... Respondents Mr.P.K. Samdani, senior advocate with Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, senior advocate, Ms. Shobha Salvi, Mr. M. Khandarkar and Ms. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, senior advocate with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani i/by Mahimtura & Co. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Shah with Mr. D.T. Suryavanshi i/by M/s.Markand Gandhi & Co. for respondent Nos.3A and 4A to 4D. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Friday, August 13, 2010 P .C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of interim stay of the order dated 5th May, 2010 in Chamber Summons No.1898 of 2009 in Suit No.2345 of 1983. 2. The subject matter of the suit is about 50,000 sq.mts. of land in the Urban Agglomeration Area, Mumbai. After filing of the declarations by the land holders, the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 proceeded to pass orders under section 10(3) and also srk ２ nm-1786-10 proceeded to take over possession of the land under section 10(5) of the Act. The possession was taken over on 28th March, 2007. Thereafter, the Legislature in the State of Maharashtra adopted on 29th November, 2007, the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 under which the proceedings under the ULC Act would abate if the possession of the excess vacant land was not taken over by the State Government. 3. The appellants viz. State of Maharashtra and Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the ULC, Greater Mumbai filed Chamber Summons No.1898 of 2009 in Suit No.2345 of 1983 in which this Court had already appointed a Receiver. The appellants, therefore, sought ex post facto leave of the Court for ratifying the act of taking over possession of the land on 28th March, 2007, in case it was necessary. 4. The respondents-plaintiffs contended that the possession was taken over by the competent authority notwithstanding the fact that Court Receiver was already in possession of the land in question and that this fact was brought to the notice of the competent authority. 5. The learned Single Judge accepting the plaintiffs' case has dismissed the chamber summons No.1898 of 2009 and has further passed an order for issuing notice of contempt against the competent authority and the other officers of the State Government. 6. It is against the above order that the State Government and the competent authority have filed Appeal No.411 of 2010. 7. We have already admitted the appeal for final hearing. srk ３ nm-1786-10 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief, we find that the appellants have made out a prima facie case for having the appeal finally heard. If ultimately the appeal is allowed and this court grants Chamber Summons No.1898 of 2009 and grants permission as prayed for in the chamber summons to continue the proceedings and to deal with the excess vacant land in question admeasuring about 50000 sq.mts., there is no question of any contempt proceedings being continued. 9. Everything will depend upon the orders the court will finally pass at the final hearing of the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the State and the authorities submits that provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 were given overriding effect by virtue of section 42 of the said Act even over an order or decree of any Court, tribunal or other authority. Therefore, it was open to the competent authority to take over possession notwithstanding the fact that the land was held by the Court Receiver as contended by the respondents-plaintiffs. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that such a contention was not raised by the appellants when they filed the chamber summons. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs further contends that the appeal is not maintainable against the order issuing notice of contempt. 12. As far as the contentions on merits are concerned including the contention based on the provisions of section 42 of the ULC Act, 1976, since this issue will be considered at the final hearing of the appeal, we are not required to pronounce upon them at this stage. 13. Having regard to the fact that the subject matter of the present srk ４ nm-1786-10 appeal is intrinsically connected with the controversies which are subject matter of writ petition No.1468 of 2009 and the proceedings in show cause notice No.3115 of 2010 in Suit No.2345 of 1983, all the three proceedings shall be heard together. 14. As regards the maintainability of the appeal, since the order issuing notice of contempt is passed after dismissal of the chamber summons and that order is challenged in appeal and this court has found prima facie case for hearing of the appeal at the final hearing stage, the interim stay of operation of the order dismissing the chamber summons will necessarily have the consequence of not allowing any further proceedings on the basis of the order dismissing the chamber summons. 15. Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.