5.wp.657-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.657 OF 2010 Kanha Hira Patil and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 1. Pursuant to a return filed by the petitioners under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") land admeasuring 11550 square meters was declared as surplus land by order dated 17.09.2007. Thereafter notification under sub section 1 of Section 10 was issued on 25.10.2007. According to the respondents, thereafter notification under sub section 3 of Section 10 was issued on 17.11.2007. According to the petitioners, notice under Section 10(5) was given and, therefore, he continued in possession of the land till 29.11.2007 when the ULC Act 5.wp.657-10 2 was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. According to the petitioners therefore in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the 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Bom.C.R. 746, as the petitioners continue to be in possession of the surplus land on 29.11.2007 when the ULC Act was repealed by the Repeal Act, all further proceedings in relation to the surplus land under the ULC Act have lapsed. 2. The Government has filed their reply. In its reply, more particularly in para-3, the Government has accepted that the actual possession is with the petitioners. In this view of the matter and the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. (supra), the Petition will have to be allowed. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (e). No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)