-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.120 OF 2009 P.P. Apte and others ... Petitioners verus The Dy. Collector & Com. Authority and another ... Respondents Mr. R. D’Souza, instructed by Mr. A.S. Ramesan, for the petitioners. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 21, 2010. P.C. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The petitioners claim to be owners of various lands situate at village Shirgaon, Tal. Ambernath, Dist. Thane. In respect of their entire holding, the petitioners filed their return under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as “the Act of 1976”). The Competent Authority passed an order under Section 8 (4) of the said Act thereby declaring land admeasuring 41515.74 sq.mtrs. as surplus vacant land. The application which was made under Section 20 of the Scheme by the petitioners came to be rejected by the respondents on 26th October, 2005 -2- on the ground that notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 was already issued on 13th March, 1985. It is the case of the petitioners that no notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was ever issued by the respondents. 3. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the repeal of the Act of 1976, which came into force in the State of Maharashtra from 29-11-2007. 4. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit in reply has been filed by one Kamlesh S. Sonale, In-charge Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Agglomeration. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it has been categorically stated that actual and physical possession of none of the surplus lands had been taken by the authorities. Considering the said factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others, 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. In view of the repeal of the Act of 1976, all the proceedings adopted under the Act of 1976 stand abated. Rule is accordingly made absolute, with parties to bear their own costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.