1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5472 OF 2008 ... Atmaram Raghu Kalamkar & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.P.Malvankar,AGP for Respondents Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:10th December, 2009 P.C.: 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Following are the admitted facts: The father of the Petitioners Shri Raghu Rama Kalamkar had filed a return under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976. On 14-2-2003 an order was made 2 under Section 8(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the Competent Authority. Thereafter a revised order was made by the authorities under Section 8(4) on 18-8-2005 holding that there is no surplus land in the holding of the father of the Petitioners. The State Government decided to revise that order and pass an order on 17-11-2007. The State Government held that the order made by the competent authority that there is no surplus land in the holding of the Petitioner is not valid and therefore, that order was set aside. The land owner was directed to pay price of the land within a period of eight days to the State Government as per the ready-recknor. It was directed that the if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Petitioners felt aggrieved by that order and has filed this petition. 3 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that with effect from 29-11-2007 the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the State of Maharashtra by Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, and as a consequence of the provisions of the Repeal Act as possession of the land which is subject matter of this petition was not taken by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, even assuming that the order dated 17-11-2007 is a valid order, all further proceedings in relation to the land which is the subject matter of this petition under the Urban Land Ceiling Act abates. He further submits that the order of the State Government directing the Petitioners to pay price of land is invalid and without authority of law. He submits that even assuming that the State 4 Government has such power, price of the land which is surplus in the holding of the Petitioners could have been recovered, as there is no order made either by the competent authority or by the State Government declaring any land as surplus land, an order to pay price of the surplus land could not have been made. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that there is no question of the State Government taking possession of the land because the order was made on 17-11-2007 and the Act was repealed with effect from 29-11-2007 and therefore within that period steps under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for possession could not have been taken. It is, thus, clear that firstly, there is no declaration that there is any surplus land in the holding of the 5 Petitioner. Secondly, there does not appear any power in the Government to recover price of the land without declaring any land as surplus. Thirdly,in view of the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act with effect from 29-11-2007 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. v/s. Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & Ors, 2008(5) Bom.C.R.746 all further proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in relation to the land of the Petitioners which is subject matter of this petition would abate. Therefore, petition will have to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)