WP.6251-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6251 OF 2009 Raghunath Govind Desale and 3 others. ..Petitioners. Versus The Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration and 2 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.D.A. Poonamiya, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. (Per K.K.TATED,J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioners are seeking declaration that all the proceedings/notifications and notices issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act, WP.6251-09 2 1976") in respect of the petitioners' property, as described in Exhibit-A to the Petition, stands abated in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Repeal Act, 1999" ) and the respondents are not entitled to resort to the provisions of the ULC ACT, 1976. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane passed an order on 11th February, 1985 declaring petitioners' 11400 square meters land as surplus land. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 was published in Government Gazette on 11th July, 1985 and on 22nd January, 1998 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. Thereafter, the authority issued notification under Section 10(5) on 28th October, 2005 directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the vacant land admeasuring 11400 square meters. 4. It is to be noted that the ULC Act, 1976 was repealed on 27th November, 2007. In the present case, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban WP.6251-09 3 Agglomeration, Thane filed his affidavit dated 1st August, 2009. In the said affidavit, it is specifically stated in para-8 that possession of the concerned land, is not taken by the authority. Therefore, as a result of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, as the possession of the surplus land was admittedly not taken, the proceedings will abate. This view is supported by judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Voltas Ltd., & anr. vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746. In para 11 of the judgment, Their Lordships stated the law thus : "Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and sub-section 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though WP.6251-09 4 declaration under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the Competent Authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. ....." 5. The law stated above fully applies to the facts of this case. In the result, therefore, Petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (e) which reads as under : WP.6251-09 5 "(e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order/declare that all proceedings/notifications and notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of said property as more particularly described in Exhibit-A hereto stands abated in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land Ceiling (Repeal Act, 1999 and the Respondents are not entitled to resort to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the petitioner's land and accordingly said proceedings/notifications ordered to be quashed and set aside;" 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO,J) (K.K. TATED,J)