1 WP 2971 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2971 of 2008 Smt.Manglibai Zipra Takle and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.K.K.Malpathak, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondent State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 21st July, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The petitioners were the owners of land bearing Survey No. 117/2 of Village Kausa, Dist. Thane. On 27-02-2004, the petitioners have entered into an agreement for development of 1031 sq. mtrs of part of Survey No.117/2, with Mr.Kamalraj Dwarkanath Dev and it is duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Thane. In so far as balance area of 3219 sq. mtrs., of Survey No.117/2 is concerned, the petitioners sold the aforementioned portion to Mr.Kamalraj Dwarkanath Dev, by way of 2 WP 2971 of 2008 agreement for sale. The petitioners on the Urban Land (C & R) Act, coming into force, filed a Return under Section 8(1) of the Act, on 01-04-2003 before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority. The filing of the return resulted in a order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, on 20-09-2003. By the said order, an area admeasuring 1031 sq. mtrs., from lands bearing Survey No.117/2 was declared as surplus land. 4. It appears that thereafter, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, came to be issued on 12-02-2004, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) dated 10-03-2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, came to be issued on 17-01-2006, as per the affidavit-in-reply of the respondents. It is irrefutable that no scheme was ultimately sanctioned by the State Government in respect of the area declared as surplus, since the petitioner did not submit any such scheme under Section 20 of the Act. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to be benefit of the repeal of the U.L. (C & R) Act, which came into force in the State of Maharashtra from 29-11-2007. 6. On behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, an additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed, by Mr.Bhausaheb Joti Patil, Additiional Collector and Competent Authority, 3 WP 2971 of 2008 Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane. In the said affidavit, a categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land was not taken by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. Considering the said factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another V/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Rule is accordingly made absolute, with parties to bear their own costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )