-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.186 OF 2008 NO.186 OF 2008 NO.186 OF 2008 Mr Keshav S. Bhide and ors. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr G.S. Godbole with Mr S.S. Kanetkar for Petitioners. Mr V.P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 2ND JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. On a motion made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, name of respondent No.4 is permitted to be deleted. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the State Government dated 3rd November 2007 setting aside the order dated 19th June 2002 made by the Competent Authority under section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The relevant facts are that the petitioners filed return under section 6(1) of the said Act on 13th August 1976. On the basis of that return, under section 8(4) of the said Act an order was made by the Competent Authority dated 19th June 2002 holding that the declarers are not holding any surplus vacant land and therefore, they are non-surplus holders. It appears that thereafter the petitioners filed a fresh return under section 15(6)(1) of the said Act on 13th March 2003 because there was a change in the circumstances. The order was passed in those proceedings on 28th March 2003 by the Competent Authority again holding that the declarers do not hold any surplus vacant land and therefore they were declared -3- to be non-surplus holders. For reversing the order dated 19th June 2002 revisional proceedings were initiated by the State Government. When the petitioners received notice from the State Government, they filed their reply and in the reply they pointed out that after the order dated 19th June 2002, a return under section 15(6) of the said Act was filed in relation to the same land and a fresh order was made on 28th March 2003 again holding that there is no surplus land. It was therefore pointed out that as there are no revisional proceedings against the order dated 28th March 2003, the revisional proceedings against the earlier order dated 19th June 2002 are not maintainable. By order dated 3rd November 2007, the State Government, without even referring to the development of filing of return under section 15 and the subsequent order dated 28th March 2003 set aside the earlier order dated 19th June 2002. According to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, the filing of the return subsequent to the order dated 19th June 2002 under section 15 of the said Act and the order made thereon dated 28th March 2003 were relevant and material circumstances for deciding the revision against the order dated 19th June 2002 and the State Government has totally ignored or omitted those circumstances from its consideration and therefore, the order of the State Government suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant and material aspect of the matter and -4- therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader. He is not able to point out that the order dated 28th March 2003 is irrelevant or that order has been considered by the State Government at any place. From the narration of the facts, it is clear that the order dated 19th June 2002 has lost its efficacy because of the subsequent order passed by the Competent Authority and therefore for reviving the proceedings under the said Act in relation to the lands of the petitioners, it was necessary to initiate revisional proceedings which would possibly lie against the subsequent order dated 28th March 2003. In any case, minimum that can be said is that in the revisional proceedings initiated against the order dated 19th June 2002 when it was specifically pointed out to the State Government - revisional authority that there is a subsequent order passed by the Competent Authority, it was necessary for the State Government, which is quasi-judicial authority, to apply its mind to that relevant aspect of the matter. The State Government, obviously has not done it and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 3rd November 2007 passed by the State Government, which is impugned in the petition, is set aside. Rule -5- is made absolute with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)