1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2008 Shapoorji Pallonji Co. pvt Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners. Versus The Additional Collector & Competent Authority (ULC) Thane, Urban Agglomeration & Ors. : Respondents. Shri S.G.Karandikar for the Petitioners Smt. P.S.Cardoza AGP for State CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 8th July, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard. 2. 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 8-5-2005, the first hearing pursuant to the notice of sue moto revision was fixed on 6-10-2007- and, the revisional order was passed on 27-11-2007. 3. The revisional order dated 27-11-2007 is challenged on the ground that the Revisional Authority could not have, in its revisional jurisdiction, issued the directions that it has issued in the matter of levying penalty for regularising the construction carried out on the lands declared as surplus vacant lands. 2 4. In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on the ground of lack of power to levy the penalty 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 that the revisional authority could not have issued directions of levying penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner for regularising the construction on the surplus vacant land. 5. Since the challenge raised in the present Petition in respect of levying the penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner is covered by the Judgment (supra), this Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. [R M SAVANT,J] [P B MAJMUDAR,J]