1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.966 OF 2010 Haroon Ebrahim Patel .. Petitioner Versus Competent Authority Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pradip J. Singh for petitioner Mr.Geeta Joglekar for respondent nos. 3 and 4 Ms.Hetal Patel i/b. Sanjy Singh for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Richa Singh for respondent No.7. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 19th July 2010. P.C. 1] In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are in the following terms:- 2 “(a) That the Competent Authority Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 be directed to immediately instruct the developer to stop the construction since it is being done without any requisite NOC under section 22 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; (b) That should be the builder be keen on construction, in that case, he be directed to seek an NOC under section 22 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and that the Competent Authority Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 be directed to take action with a view to acquiring the entire land under the provisions of section 22(2) of the ULC since the said open and vacant land is about 100 times more than the ceiling limit on vacant land and that the same could be provided for mass housing under the Government GR of 1986; (c) That till the time the NOC of the Competent Authority is obtained, the construction which is going on at the site be stayed and that ad-interim orders may be issued accordingly; (d) that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai be directed to revoke the sanction accorded to the development proposal on the said land since such permission was based on the erroneous submission that there was an ULC exemption in the matter, whereas actually there was no such specific required exemption.” 2] The learned Counsel for respondents have invited our attention to the decision dated 19th July 2007 in respect of this very land. A Public 3 Interest Litigation being PIL No.145 of 2006 was filed by one Bhimraj Deepchandji Kothari and the same came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by the above order on 19th July 2007. The grievance made in the said petition regarding violation of ULC Act were considered by the Division Bench and this Court dismissed the petition on several grounds, including the fact that the petition filed in the year 2006 was barred by delay and latches and that the construction of buildings of dwelling units had considerably progressed. Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra adopted ULC Repeal Act with effect from 29th November 2007 and, therefore, it is all the more reason for us not to entertain the present petition, in so far as, by the provisions of Repeal Act, it has been made clear that even pending proceedings under the Act shall abate in case where the possession has not been taken over by the competent authority. Admittedly, possession as of 29th November 2007 was not taken by the State Government or Competent Authority. 3] Learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, submits that apart from the grievance about violation of provisions of ULC Act, the 4 petitioner also has proprietary interest in the land in question and invites our attention to the following averments made in para (2) of the petition:- “2. Introduction of the Petitioner:The Petitioner is a senior citizen. He holds proprietary interest on the land bearing CTS Nos.14, 166A & B, 167A and 171 of Village Majas, off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road. The said proprietary interest emanates from the interest held on the said land by the father of the petitioner as a “protected tenant” under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. For the reason of illiteracy of the petitioner’s father, the owners of the land divested him of the said tenancy by forging revenue records. An FIR with respect to this forgery has been registered by the D.N.Nagar police station and the same is under investigation.” 4] It is obvious that the petitioner’s claim on the basis of the claim of petitioner’s father as a protected tenant under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act, cannot be examined in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. While, therefore, dismissing the petition insofar as the petitioner has made grievance about alleged violation of ULC Act, we make it clear that it will be open for the petitioner to assert his claim of proprietary interest over the land in question in appropriate proceedings 5 before the appropriate forum. In case the petitioner has already taken out such other proceedings, we may not be presumed to have granted any permission to the petitioner to institute any fresh proceedings. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)