1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3703/2005 M/s Shree Gajanan Chemical Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.G.S.Kulkarni i/b Mr.Shekhar Bhise & Mr.Rajendra A.Mehta for petitioner Mr.C.R.Sonawane ,AGP for State Coram :J.N.Patel & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date :6th July,2009 P.C.(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . Rule. 2] Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent . 3] The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act ,1956. The petitioner holds land at Kolshet , Tal. & Dist.Thane. On 3/11/1978 the respondent no.2 served a notice upon the petitioners under sub-section 3 of section 8 of The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act,1976 in respect of land survey no.20 Pt.34/1/,35/1,situate at village 2 Kolshet,Tal.& Dist Thane. The petitioner filed say to the said notice,but on 13/7/1988 again a notice was sent to the petitioner under section 10(1) of the said Act . Again the petitioner received notice dated 14/9/1988 and notice under 20 of the said Act dated 28/2/2005 .On 13/4/2005 the respondent no.2 handed over to the petitioners the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 28/3/1988 passed in Dispute no.ULC/TA/Kolshet /SR-53. The petitioner therefore, filed this petition for declaration that impugned proceedings adopted under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act,1976 is null and void , quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 28/3/2988 ,prohibiting the respondents from implementing and executing the judgment and order dated 28/3/1988 and notice dated 28/2/2005. 4] The respondents have filed affidavit in reply opposing the petition. It is agreed by them that the possession of the land was not taken by the respondents and it is with the petitioner. 5] The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act,1976 was repealed on 29/11/2007 and so the proceedings under the said Act are abated since the said date. In the present matter the Government has not taken any steps for possession of the surplus land under section 10(3) of the said Act prior to 29/11/2007. 3 Thus,the case of the petitioner is covered under the decision of the Supreme Court Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P.&Ors.,AIR, 2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court,6282; in which it is held as follows- 5]Section-4 of the Repeal Act reads as follows : 4.Abatement of legal proceedings- All legal proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act ,before any Court, tribunal or other authority shall abate; Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11,12,13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land,possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. 6] In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed,undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land.Therefore,the proceedings have to be treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. 6] Further reliance is placed on Voltas and Others Vs.Additional Collector & Competent Authority ,2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746 and the SLP preferred against this decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7] The petition will therefore have to be allowed in terms of 4 prayer clause (a),(a-a) & (b) which read as follows. (a) For a writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby calling for all the records and proceedings of the Dispute No.ULC/TA/Kolshet/SR-53 from the office of the Respondent no.2 and after examining the legality,validity and propriety thereof, the judgment and order dated 28/3/1988 passed by the Respondent no.2 in Dispute No. ULC/ TA/ Kolshet/SR-53 be quashed and set aside. (a-a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the impugned proceedings adopted under the the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act,1976 by the Respondents against the Petitioners are bad,illegal,null and void and stand abated on account of the repeal of the said Act by the Government of Maharashtra on 29-11-2007. (b) For a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition thereby prohibiting the Respondents from implementing and executing the judgment and order dated 28/2/1988 passed by the Respondent no.3 in Dispute No.ULC/TA/Kolshet/SR-53 and the notice dated 28/02/2005 served by the Respondent No.2 upon the Petitioners. 5 Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. (J.N.Patel,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) SRS