1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION P.I.L. NO. 90 OF 2008 The Janata Grahak Madhyavarti Sahakari Sangh Maryadit & Anr. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. None for the Petitioners. Mr. P.M. Patil, AGP., for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent No.4. Mr. D.R. More for Respondent No.5. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. 2 DATE: 23RD APRIL, 2009. P.C. . Heard. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the action of the Respondent State of demanding undertaking and NOC on the stamp of Rs. 300/- at the time of registration of the conveyance of ‘vacant land’ which was subject to Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 which stands repealed by adoption of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by the State Legislature on 29.11.2007 and which is implemented in the State of Maharashtra since 1.12.2007. It is contended that in light of the adoption of the Repeal Act as per rule 44 of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, the registration authority is not entitled and has no jurisdiction at the time of registration of any instrument in respect of such vacant land to demand from 3 transferor or transferee ‘no objection’ or permission issued by the competent authority. It is further contended that non-acceptance of proposal for granting the non- agricultural permission, sanction of building plans, etc., by respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5 and their subordinate officers on the ground of seeking clearance under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 is to be declared illegal, ultra vires, void ab initio and non-est in law due to repeal of the said Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Basant Nahata reported in (2005) 12 S.C.C. 77 wherein the Supreme Court struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as inserted by Rajasthan Amendment Act 16 of 1976 which is para materia to Section 22-A which has been inserted by way of amendment after Section 22-A of Bombay Act 24 of 1938 (with effect from 8.2.1939 read with Act No. 35 of 1958 with 4 effect from 24.4.1958). The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in context to Section 22-A of the Registration Act of 1908 is not relevant for deciding this petition as it relates to documents registration which is opposed to public policy and this very provision is struck down by the Supreme Court as ultra virus. This was incorporated with a different purpose and object whereas the circular which was issued was under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which now ceases to exist due to repeal of the said Act. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed affidavit in reply stating that the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly has adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on 29.11.2007 and from that day itself implementation of the principal Act has come to an end. After adopting the Repeal Act, 1999, the State Government, in Urban Development Department has issued directions dated 1.3.2008 and 3.3.2008 allowing the transfer of vacant land. 5 It is also stated that the Government has issued circulars dated 1.3. 1.3.2008 and 3.3.2008 to that effect to all the competent authorities which are annexed to the affidavit in reply as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively and it is further stated that the Government has already acted as per the provisions of the Repeal Act. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that now the land owner can get his vacant land transferred after executing an affidavit and indemnity bond on the stamp of Rs. 300/- and conditional N.O.C. Is deleted. 6. It is to be noted that when this matter came up before us on the last date, this Court made a query that on what basis the Government is charging stamp duty of Rs. 300/- as the stamp of Rs. 300/- is not permissible as per the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act. The Respondent State has thereafter filed an additional affidavit in reply stating that the Government 6 is ready and willing to effect the necessary changes in consonance with the Bombay Stamp Act and mere affidavit on a non judicial stamp of Rs. 100/- is sufficient for achieving the object which the government had in mind for which the clarificatory letters dated 1.3.2008 and 3.3.2008 have been issued and the Government will take out a corrigendum to that effect. 6. In view of this, the petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)