:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 599 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2008 Shri Buvaji Krishna Toaskar ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents ====== Ms.Gauri Jadhav Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : U 1. According to Ms.Gauri Jadhav, the order passed in W.P.No.237 of 2008 on 23.1.2008 presents lots of difficulties for the petitioner. 2. According to her, the order proceeds on the basis that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not repealed. Assuming it is so repealed by the Repeal Act, 1999 as adopted by the State government with effect from 29.11.2007, then, her case is that the petitioner would be compelled to apply for :2: :2: :2: exemption from the provisions of the ULC Act and invoke the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 20 of the ULC Act. In other words, if the land has not been taken possession of, then, it does not vest and therefore there is no question of presenting any scheme or applying for exemption, is the submission. 3. The order dated 23.01.2008 proceeds on the basis that earlier scheme was sanctioned with certain terms and conditions. The terms were not fulfilled and the Scheme came to be revoked. I had observed that the land vests with the State Government. The case was that the property is land-locked and therefore the Scheme cannot be implemented and now the petitioner is in a position to implement the Scheme. 4. The petitioner has withdrawn the Writ petition with liberty to approach the Competent Authority with a fresh Scheme. The petitioner has been granted liberty to approach the Competent Authority with a fresh Scheme, which has to be considered without being influenced by the earlier order and in accordance with :3: :3: :3: law. 5. Therefore, I see no reason to issue any clarification. If the Act has stood repealed with effect from 29.11.2007 is the case of the petitioner, then, when, the petitioner approaches the Government, nothing prevents him from asserting so. Once he asserts that the Act stands repealed and the property therefore is no longer subjected to the ULC Act, needless to state that even that aspect must be looked into. Assuming that the Act is not repealed or its Repeal does not affect the proceedings already initiated or pending, then, without prejudice to the contentions with regard to repeal of the Act, the petitioner can submit a fresh scheme. Therefore, there is no necessity of issuing any clarification. I see no prejudice to the petitioner on account of withdrawal of the Writ Petition. Civil Application disposed off. No costs. *******