1wp-624-10 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.624/2010. Smt Sangi Rama Ganu ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents. Siddharth R. Ronghe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr R. Nargolkar, A.G.P., for Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 25TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. By an order under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act ), the land ad measuring 4550 sq.meters was declared as surplus vacant land from the holding of the petitioner on 21.8.1993. Thereafter, a notification under 2wp-624-10 Section 10 (1) of the Act was issued on 30.11.1993. A notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 5.2.1998 and entry was taken in the revenue record in April, 2007 showing that the Government of Maharashtra is owner of the surplus land. The petitioner did not make any grievance against that entry. But the petitioner claims that she is in actual possession of the land. However, it is a common ground that entry in 7-12 which is the revenue record that possession has been taken showing the Government of Maharashtra as the occupant of the land. The petitioner claims that because she continued to be in actual possession of the land on 29.11.2007 when the U.L.C., Act was repealed by the Urban (Ceiling & Regulation)Repeal Act,1999 the Government cannot take actual possession of the land from her. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd and another Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others reported in 2008 (5) Bom.C.R. 746 submitted that if the land holder is in possession of the land declared as surplus on 29.11.2007 all further proceedings under the U.L.C.,Act,1976 have lapsed. But in this case, it is not clear that the petitioner continues to be in actual possession of the land. Entries taken in the revenue record have presumptive value and, therefore, we will 3wp-624-10 have to go by that entry, specially when those entries have not been challenged by the petitioner. Whether actual possession of the land was taken by the Government from the petitioner or not is a disputed question of fact, which also cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction of this Court. From the averments in the petition it does not appear that the Government after 29.11.2007 has taken any steps in relation to the land it may be either because the Government is already in possession of the land or because the Governmentdoes not want to take actual possession of the land. If the case of the petitioner is true that she is in actual possession of the surplus land, looking at the matter from that point of view, in our opinion, this petition cannot be entertained in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is hereby rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH.) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI.)