1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9244 OF 2007 Shri Prafulla D. Dani and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) and others ...Respondents Mr Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr Counsel i/b Mr S.G. Karandikar for Petitioners. Mr N.V. Walavalkar, Sr Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] After commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the petitioners have filed return under the Act as required. By order dated 14 th September 1992, land from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus. The petitioners applied for exemption under section 20 of the said Act. The exemption was granted by order dated 29 th December 1987. However, by order dated 25 th April 2005 the exemption granted under section 20 of the said Act was cancelled. An appeal was filed against that order. The appeal was decided by order dated 22 nd March 2007. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Competent Authority cancelling exemption. However, suo motu revisional proceedings were taken against the order of the Appellate Authority. On 8 th November 2007 the Revisional Authority set aside the 3 order passed in appeal and confirmed the declaration made under sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act. The result of the Revisional Authority s order was that the exemption granted to the land of the petitioners was cancelled. Therefore, as per revisional order, the State Government was entitled to take possession of the land from the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that however, till 29 th November 2007 when Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, the petitioners continued to be in possession and possession of the land was not taken by the respondents. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 6 of that affidavit dated 26 th November 2009, a categorical statement is made that though the respondents had initiated action under sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act, the actual physical possession of the surplus land is not taken by the respondents. As the surplus land continued to be in possession of the petitioners on the date on which the Principal Act 4 was repealed, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) was a party, in its judgment in the case of Voltas Ltd. And anr. v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors., reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the 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. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )