1612mca955.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.955 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4729 of 2009 (D) (Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board .vs. Maroti Ramaji Bobde and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 21/12/2011. Heard Mr.H.N.Varma, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.C.V.Kale, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and Mr.D.P.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. This review petition is directed against the judgment dt.25.11.2009 whereby Writ Petition No.4729 of 2009 came to be allowed. Counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the factual and legal aspect involved in the present review petition is similar to one involved in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011. It is submitted that in U.L.C. Case No.3155/76 of mouza Chichbhuvan the land bearing Survey Nos.214, 345, 246, 247, 248, 1612mca955.11.odt 2 258, 263/2 and 310/5 admeasuring 30495.01 sq.mt. belonging to non-applicant no.1 came to be declared as surplus vacant land by the competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”) vide order dt.30.4.1982. Subsequent thereto, the State Government allotted the land admeasuring 14227.01 sq.mt. out of total surplus land to the applicant/Board. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that, in view of declaration u/s.10 (3) of the ULC Act, the land vested in the Government. Notice dt.9.10.1989, u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act was also issued by the competent Authority for delivering possession of the lands to the Tahsildar. Since the possession was not handed over by non- applicant no.1, another notice u/s.10(5), dt.9.1.1991 again came to be served on him. However, because of certain unavoidable circumstances, physical possession of the surplus land, could not be taken over by the State. However, that does not affect the efficacy of declaration u/s.10(3) of the ULC Act nor affects the rights of the applicant to claim possession of the said land. Hence, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. Mr.D.P.Thakare, A.G.P. has not disputed that the issue involved in the present 1612mca955.11.odt 3 matter stands covered by the decision in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another .vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane and Others reported in 2008 (5) ALL MR 537. Similar is the stand taken by the Counsel for the other respondents. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. It is not in dispute that the factual and legal aspect involved in the present review petition is similar to one involved in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011 including the fact that the issue stands covered by the law declared by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another. Similarly, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment by this Court are based on the law declared in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another and therefore, they are sustainable in law. Hence, for the reasons stated by this Court in the order dt.21.12.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011, present review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais