1 WP 7385 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7385 of 2007 Vijay Shankarrao Walvekar and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioners claim to be owners of various lands in and around Pune city. The petitioners on the Urban Land (C & R) Act, coming into force, filed various Returns under Section 6(1) of the Act, before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Pune, on 14-08-1976. The filing of the returns resulted in a order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, dated 31-01-1984, by which certain portion of the land of the petitioner was declared as excess vacant land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the said Act, before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The Additional Commissioner allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Additional Collector and Competent Authority for de novo hearing. The 2 WP 7385 of 2007 said 8/4 order as originally passed, came to be revised by an order dated 03-07-1986 and by the said order, an area admeasuring 632.24 sq. mtrs., from lands bearing Survey No.50+52+53/A, Plot No.98 of Village Parvati, was declared as surplus land. 2. It appears that thereafter, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, came to be issued on 22-09-2005, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) dated 20-11-2006. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the act, came to be issued on 06-09-2007. It appears that the petitioners had filed an application for availing of the scheme under Section 20(1) of the said Act on 22-06-2005. Pursuant to the said application, petitioners were called upon to submit plans within a period of three days, failing which the application was to stand rejected. Since the petitioners did not submit plans as demanded, no action was taken on the said application and the matter accordingly rested there. The fact of the matter is that no scheme was ultimately sanctioned in respect of the area declared as surplus. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to be benefit of the repeal of the U.L. (C & R) Act, which came into force in the State of Maharashtra from 29-11-2007. 6. On behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the directions 3 WP 7385 of 2007 issued by this Court, an additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed, by Mr.Bhanudas Pandurang Gaikwad, Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune. In the said affidavit, a categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land was not taken by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. Considering the said factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another V/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (e-1). Rule is accordingly made absolute, with parties to bear their own costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )