1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 137 OF 2008 Balasaheb Pandit Nakhate & ors. : Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr. S M Gorwadkar for the Petitioners. Smt. P S Cardoza AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18th June 2010 P.C. 1 Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 By way of this writ petition, the Petitioners challenge the order passed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 on 21st November 2007 (herein after referred to as “the ULC Act”. While exercising the revisional powers, the State has passed an order directing the Petitioners to pay compensation at the market rate prevailing as per the ready reckoner . The Petitioners have challenged the said order on the ground that after the repeal of the ULC Act, the revisional authority has no powers to pass 2 such an order as at the time when the said order was passed, the State was considering the question for repealing the Act or applying the Repeal Act in the State. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that after filing of this Petition and during pendency of this Petition, the Repeal Act has already come into force. Though the learned AGP pointed out that at the time when this Petition was filed the Repeal Act has already came into force, the authority has exercised the revisional powers after inordinate delay as it was exercised after two years. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the revisional authority has passed the said order against the original order passed under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act by which the competent authority came to the conclusion that the Petitioners were not holding excess vacant land. It is submitted that therefore the revisional authority could not directed the payment of any compensation whilst exercising the revisional powers. 3 In so far as the issue of limitation and direction of payment of compensation by the revisional authority is concerned, this Court has already decided the said issue in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna v/s. State of Maharashtra. This Court has held that the revisional power is required to be exercised within reasonable time. The revisional authority would have to consider the 3 original order passed by the competent authority which is in connection with the holding of excess vacant land by the Petitioner. The revisional authority could not have gone beyond the original order passed by the competent authority. Since the point in question has already been covered by judgment in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008, the above Writ Petition is allowed on the same line by setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]