15.wp.516-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.516 OF 2010 Bhausaheb Baban Barate and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.P.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondents - State. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The facts necessary for deciding this Petition are that - by an order dated 28 th October, 2002 made by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the Urban Ceiling Act, the land admeasuring 21610 square meters from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus. By an order dated 23.6.2006 passed by the Additional Collector 15.wp.516-10 2 and Competent Authority a Scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was sanctioned for the entire surplus land and the land was exempted from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Thereafter it appears that the petitioners made an application to the State Government dated 6.2.2008 praying that the two lands from his holding, viz., land bearing Survey Nos.81/2 & 81/3 do not have any access and, therefore, they should be declared as not vacant. An application to the same effect, it appears, was again made. The application of the petitioners for declaration of the land from Survey Nos.81/2 & 81/3 is no vacant land is rejected by the State Government by order dated 20.8.2009. It is this order, which is challenged in this Petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that this order has been made by the State Government without granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 3. We have heard the learned AGP appearing for the Government who accepts that this order has been made 15.wp.516-10 3 rejecting the application of the petitioners without granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice : :: O R D E R :: [i] The order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the Government of Maharashtra is set aside. The State Government is directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and thereafter decide application dated 6.2.2008. [ii] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)