1 WP.8666-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8666 OF 2010 Shri Harishchandra Shankar Rane ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. --- Mr. G.M. Savagave, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. --- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. December 22, 2010. P.C. 1] Heard Mr. Savagave, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Rule. Respondents waive service. The Petition is heard finally. 2] In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is praying for a declaration that surplus land ad-measuring 52,879.13 sq.mtrs. out of Survey Nos. 26/1, 16/1/1, 16/5, 12A/1pt., 15/2, 13/6, 12/11pt., 5/5/2, 5/2/1, 5/2/3, 5/6, 33pt. at village Dwarli and S. No.36/6, 45/7 at village Adiwali and Dhokali respectively, taluka Ambarnath, District Thane, has abated 2 WP.8666-2010 in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act, 1999, and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd and Ors. Versus Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration and Ors. [2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746]. 3] The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane has filed affidavit in reply and stated in paragraph 3 as under:- “3. I say that though this Respondent has followed the statutory provision u/s 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Principal Act, but the actual and physical possession of the subject land was not taken by this Respondent. The principal secretary, Urban Development Department had issued the circular on 12.05.2010 and directing the Competent Authorities to delete the name of Government of Maharashtra on 7/12 extract and those lands are not taken in actual physical possession before 29.11.2007 issuing the deletion of notification u/s 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. I say that, as per the order of Urban Development Department Respondent No.2 issued the deletion of notification u/s 10(3) of Principal Act on the subject land on 04.10.2010. I annexed herewith the copy of the notification u/s 10(3) as Exh.1.” 3 WP.8666-2010 4] On account of the admitted position, the Petitioner’s case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd (Supra), and therefore, the Petition will have to be allowed. 5] Hence, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)