-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8699 OF 2007 The Muslim Jamat Hussein Shah Baba Trust, Yerwada, Pune ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 29, 2010. P.C. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Government under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as “the Act”), dated 31st October, 2007. By the impugned order, the revisional authority exercising suo motu powers under Section 34 of the Act set aside the order passed by the Collector and Competent Authority , Pune dated 31st December, 2002 which order was passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act. The revisional authority has held that after deducting value/cost of the area of the disputed -2- land, the amount should be paid by the petitioner as per the current market rate in accordance with the ready reckoner and the petitioner was informed accordingly. The land owner was asked to deposit the said amount within 30 days. It is further provided in the order that if the amount is not deposited by the land owner, action would be taken under Section 38 of the said Act. 3. The petitioner has submitted the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not holding any excess land. The aforesaid order was taken into suo motu revision by the State after about 5 years and the revisional authority has passed the impugned order which is under challenge. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional powers could not have been exercised by the State after five years. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the revisional authority has no power to ask the petitioner to pay the amount as per the ready reckoner rate and as such the said order is de hors the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that in view of the repeal of the Act, now proceedings can be said to be abated and, therefore, no order could have been passed by the revisional authority. 5. Since the point in issue is no more res integra and the same is covered by Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 153 -3- of 2008 to which one of us (Majmudar, J. ) was a party. In an identical fact situation, the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition has quashed and set aside the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay and also on the ground that no such powers could be exercised under Section 34 of the said Act. Since the point raised in this petition is covered by our decision referred to above, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.