-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1301 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1301 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1301 OF 2008 Punjabai L. Malujkar and ors. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr G.S. Godbole with Mr S.S. Kanetkar for Petitioners. Mr A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Admittedly, the land from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. Thereafter, Notification dated 5th April 2007 was issued under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 was issued and it was published in the Government Gazette dated 21st June 2007. A Notice under subsection (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 3rd July 2007 directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the land. According to the averments in the petition, possession of the land declared as surplus, however, was not taken by the Government till 29th November 2007 when the Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999. According to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, now proceedings for acquisition of land cannot continue and the land will revert back to the petitioners. The learned counsel -3- appearing for petitioners relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.8356 of 2006 (Voltas Ltd. and anr. v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and ors.) decided on 25th July 2008 to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) is a party. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 by Shri Tukaram G. Pawar and in paragraph 6 of that affidavit, so far as the aspect of possession is concerned, he has stated thus :- "So also the respondent No.2 is ready to pay the appropriate amount of compensation to the petitioner after taking possession of the acquired land as per rates given by the Government for surplus land declared under ULC Act. . We have heard learned counsel appearing for respondents. He is also not in a position to point out that possession of the land was taken in accordance with law by the Government at any point of time before 29th November 2007. In this view of the matter therefore, and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. referred to above, this petition will have to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c), excluding the bracketed portion, with no -4- order as to costs. . At the request of the learned counsel appearing for respondents, it is directed that tepidities shall maintain status-quo in relation to the land which is subject matter of this petition for a period of eight weeks from today. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)