1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6963 of 2005 Shri Madhuprakash Maheshwari and 43 Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole, for the petitioners. Smt.P.S.Cardoza, AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate, for respondent No.5. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 23rd June, 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners take exception to the order /letter dated 22-07-2005 by which the petitioners were informed that the State Government suo motu intends to take into revision the order dated 15-05-1995 passed under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevities sake referred to as the said Act) and the Corrigendum issued thereto dated 29-03-1996. By the said orders, it has been held by the Additional Collector & Competent Authority that the petitioners does not hold any surplus vacant land. 2. Facts in brief, giving rise to the filing of the above petition can be stated thus : 2 The petitioners are the owners/residents of the respective plots/houses in the lands which were the subject matter of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The land in question being Survey No.705/2/1 corresponding to Final Plot No.434 and 402, TPS II, Gangapur Road, Nashik, totally admeasuring 12.67 Hectars, was originally owned by a public charitable trust known as Mahrashtra Prabodhan Seva Mandal, Nashik, bearing PTR No.F-1400 Bombay. After obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the said trust sold the said land to M/s.Prasad Developers. The said order of the Charity Commissioner is dated 25-11-1991. Pursuant to the said sanction, Rupal Pravinchandra Shah and 19 others, purchased the land admeasuring 38,000 sq. mtrs., from and out of survey No.705/2/1 corresponding to Final Plot No.434 and 402, TPS II, Gangapur Road, Nashik, for a total amount of Rs. 24,80,000/-. The said twenty purchasers purchased the aforesaid land jointly by indicating respective areas purchased by them under the sale deed. The sale deed was duly registered in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Nashik. The said Rupal Shah and others, thereafter, filed Returns under Section 15 r/w Section 6 of the said Act, before the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Nashik. 3. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority, passed 3 an order on 15-05-1995 under Section 8(4) of the said Act, and it was held that since the holding of the individual owners was only 1278 sq. mtrs., which was less than the ceiling limits, none of the said land owners can be said to hold land in excess of the said ceiling limit. It was also recorded that out the area of 38000 sq.mtrs. purchased by the said owners, an area admeasuring 9,640 sq.mtrs., was reserved for playground and an area admeasuring 2800 sq.mtrs., was reserved for parking in the development plan and that the remaining area admeasuring 22560 sq.mtrs., was covered by the residential zone. Thereafter, it appears that a layout plan was prepared in respect of the said lands admeasuring 38000 sq. mtrs. A tentative approval to the said layout was granted by the A.D.T.P., Nashik, on 13-06-1995. On 08-10-1995, mutation entry No. 33518 was made in V.F.No.6D in favour of the said land owners. It appears that thereafter, on 29-03-1996, a corrigendum came to be issued by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority to the said 8(4) order, once again reiterating the position that the said 20 owners did not hold land in excess of the ceiling limit. On 28-05-1996, A.D.T.P., Nashik, Municipal Corporation, was pleased to grant final approval to the lay out submitted by the said twenty owners after recording that the land owners Rupal P. Shah and others have complied with all the conditions prescribed by the order granting tentative approval to the lay out. Thereafter, NA 4 order came to be passed by the District Collector for conversion of the land admeasuring 25,960 sq.mtrs., for non-agricultural purposes for residential users, which was by an order dated 16-05-1997. Between 1995 and 1997, the said twenty persons obtained no objection certificate from the Collector for sale of the various plots carved out in their respective holdings, which permission was granted by the Collector under Section 26 of the said Act. The commencement certificate was also granted to various persons by the Nashik Municipal Corporation who had applied for development permission in respect of their respective plots. The occupation certificate to such persons came to be granted on 29-09-1998. Thereafter, all of a sudden, after a lapse of almost eight years from the corrigendum issued to the said 8(4) order, the petitioners received the impugned communication dated 22-07-2005, informing them that the State Government had decided to initiate proceedings for suo motu revision by having recourse to Section 34 of the said Act. 4. As indicated above, it is the said communication dated 22-07-2005, which is impugned in the present petition. The challenge to the said communication dated 22-07-2005 is principally on the ground of delay in initiating the said suo motu revision proceedings by having recourse to Section 34 of the said Act. As regards the challenge to the suo motu proceedings on the said ground of inordinate delay, the issue has 5 been concluded by a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8571 of 2007 and companion matters. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Automotive Research Association of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., that the State Government could not have exercised its powers under Section 34 in relation to the orders passed in the year 1995 and thereafter, a corrigendum in the year 1997. This Court held that the powers under Section 34 of the said Act, are to be exercised by the Revisional Authority within a reasonable period and this Court has held that three years would be a reasonable period. The Division Bench held that even if the said Act had not been repealed, the State Government could not have varied or modified the order made under Section 8(4) after such a long passage of time. 5. During the pendency of the above petition, another defining event that has taken place is the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which has came into force on 29-11-2007. In view of the repeal of the said Act and in the light of the saving clause, the revisional proceedings even though, pending with the State Government, at the relevant time, cannot now be decided and therefore, would have to be held to have abated. In that view of the matter, the 6 above petition would have to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22-07-2005 in the above petition. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )