1wp-3432-09 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.3432 OF 2009 Smt Savitribai Gajanan Patil & Ors. ..Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Girish S. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 7TH DECEMBER,2009 P.C.:- The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that after the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 return was filed by one Balu 2wp-3432-09 Ambo Patil. After filing of the return he expired on 11.7.1980. But it appears that without taking note of his death by an order dated 22.12.1980 the land from his holding was declared as surplus. Pursuant to that declaration of surplus land, notifications under sub Section (1) of Section 10 and sub section (3) of Section 10 of the U.L.C.,Act were issued which were published in the official Gazette dated 9th February, 2006. Thereafter, petitioner No.1, daughter-in-law of Late Balu Ambo Patil and his son Gajanan, filed a fresh return under the U.L.C.Act. Pursuant to that return the order was made on 15.2.2007 by the Competent Authority holding that there is no surplus land in the holding of the legal representatives of the original owner Balu Ambo Patil. It appears that the revenue authority on the basis of notice issued under Sub section (5) of Section 10 which was issued pursuant to the declaration of surplus land made on the basis of the return filed by Late Balu Ambo Patil have taken the 3wp-3432-09 mutation entry in the revenue record showing that the Government is the owner of the lands. The grievance of the petitioner is against that mutation entry. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the second order made by the Competent Authority pursuant to the return filed by Gajanan and his wife, petitioner No.1, the first order will not survive and therefore the notice issued under sub section (5) of Section 10 will also not survive and therefore the Revenue Authority was not justified in taking mutation entry on that basis. The learned counsel also submits that in the affidavit-in-reply, filed on behalf of the State Government, a categorical statement has been made in paragraph 16 that possession of the land pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10 (5) was not taken. In our opinion, the petitioner is not justified in claiming declaration that in view of the Repeal Act by which the U.L.C.Principal Act was repealed, further proceedings under the Repeal Act abate, because it is nobody s case that the Government is trying to 4wp-3432-09 take possession of the land under the provisions of U.L.C.,Principal Act. There is already a declaration made that there is no surplus land in the possession of the petitioners. Therefore, according to us, the only thing against which the petitioners can make a grievance is the mutation entry and for making grievance against the mutation entry the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order taking mutation entry. Therefore, in our opinion, present petition cannot be entertained. It is hereby rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)