1 wp8598.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2010 Dagadu Pandurang Gavhane (Deceased) Soma Dagadu Gavhane ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :- Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 In our opinion, in view of what is stated in paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 of Affidavit of Subhash Ramchandra Dharmadhikari, filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Petition will have to be allowed. 3 Paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 of the Affidavit read as under:- “1. I state that Shri Dagadu Pandurang Gavhane had 2 wp8598.10.sxw ssm filed return u/s 6(1) of the ULC Act. By order dated 28-2-1991, Respondent No.2 passed an order u/s 8(4) of the ULC Act, thereby declaring surplus area admeasuring about 14,200 sq. mtrs out of S. No. 206/4, 207/4 pt. At Village Bhosari, Tal Haveli, Dist. Pune. The Petitioner has wrongly stated that the land was declared surplus from S. No. 207/7 instead of 207/4 pt. 2. I say that thereafter notification u/s 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 28-2-1991, thereafter again on 15-6-2005 the notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act and notification u/s 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 26-4-2007. However, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act for taking possession of the surplus land was not issued. 3. I say that though the notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) was issued, the notice under Section 10(5) was not issued and therefore the Petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the surplus land admeasuring about 14,200 sq. mtrs out of S. No. 206/4, 207/4 pt. at Village Bhosari, Tal Haveli, Dist. Pune. 4. I say that since the State of Maharashtra has adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 29-11-2007 and thereafter by circular dated 12-5-2010, it was declared that if the actual and physical possession of the surplus land is not taken, then the same be returned to the original land holder. Accordingly, this Respondent No.2 by notification dated 30-5-2011 has cancelled the notification issued under Section 10(3) in respect of the surplus land of the Petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “1” is the copy of the said notification dated 30-5-2011.” 3 wp8598.10.sxw ssm 4 It is, thus clear that before 29 November 2007 when the Urban Ceiling Act was repealed in the State of Maharashtra, possession of the subject land was not taken by the State Government. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors, reported in 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746, all proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act in relation to the land which is the subject matter of this Petition have lapsed. It is accordingly so declared. 5 Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)