1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 103 of 2010 Ramesh Laxman Patil & ors. ....Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 105 of 2010 Rohidas G. Thakur & ors. ....Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr. D.S. Maispurkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh P. Behre, Addl. GP for respondent nos. 1-3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- March 26, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. R.P. Behre, Addl. Government Pleader waives notice for Respondents 1-3. As short question is involved, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this Petition is the consequence of not taking possession of the land referred to in the Declaration or Notifications issued under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations)Act, 1976 after the said enactment has lapsed. In the present case, the Dy. Collector and Competent Authority on affidavit has admitted that possession of disputed land has not been taken over as of now. The legal position has now been answered is Voltas Ltd. & ors. v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors. reported in 2008 (5) Bombay Cases Reporter 746. In view of the admitted position, the Petition ought to succeed on the same terms. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a)(b) & (d). (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)