-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4601 OF 2008 Jayant Maniklal Lunawat ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. Nitin Mulye, instructed by Mr. G.S. Godbole, for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 09, 2010. P.C. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the initiation of the revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said proceedings. In the instant case the order under Section 8(4) was passed on 15th March, 1999 holding that the provisions of the Act are not applicable and as such there is no surplus vacant land in possession of the petitioner. It appears that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act to revise that order was taken up by the Government and the revisional order was passed on 15th November, 2007. Hence there is a delay of about eight years. -2- 3. The revisional order dated 15th November, 2007 is challenged on the ground that the powers of revision have to be exercised within a reasonable time. In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on the aforesaid ground of inordinate delay is concerned, the said issue is no more res-integra and is concluded by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6th May 2010 , (to which one of us P B Majmudar, J was a party) in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. By the said judgment, the revisional order in the said case was quashed on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said revisional proceedings. 5 The learned AGP submitted that at the time of passing order under Section 34, the Government has also sanctioned a scheme under Section 20 of the Act unilaterally and that the Government has the power to do so. In our view, the said exercise also could not have been undertaken after such an unreasonable time and even the said aspect is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 17th December 2009 (D K Deshmukh and K K Tated, JJ) in Writ Petition No.8686/07 in the matter of Raghunath Baburao Tupe and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. -3- 6 Since in the instant case revisional proceedings were initiated after a period of eight, for the view taken by the Division Benches of this Court in the said Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.8686 of 2007, 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 in the above terms. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.