1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2688 OF 2009 Kashinath Panglya Naik & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority – Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Gauri Godse for Petitioners. Mrs. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondents– State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane & Ors. reported in 2008(5) ALL MR page 537. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the 2 original owners filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 on 14th August 1976 in respect of the land in question, viz. Survey No. 80/3, 80/20, 108/1 and 110/17 admeasuring (in all) 2531.79 sq. meters. 3. It is further contended that after the death of the original owner, the legal representatives on 6th October 2001 filed a fresh returns in respect of land, viz. Survey No. 17/4, 75/2, 120/2 (part), 76/2, 80/3 (part), 80/18, 108/a-1 (part) 108K and Pardi No. 18 admeasuring (in all) 24280 sq. meters situate at Village Temghar, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 18th June 2003 the respondents published a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act of 1976 and the statement of owners was recorded. On 13th December 2006 an Order under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 was passed whereby the land admeasuring 21280 sq. meters out of the said property was declared as a surplus land. Respondent No.1 further directed to commence proceedings under Sections 9 and 10(1) of the Act of 1976. 5. It is further contended that on 26th September 2007 a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued in respect of the surplus land. On 17th November 2007 Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 3 1976 was issued. However, till this date the land in question is in the possession of the petitioners. It is submitted that since the land in question is in possession of the petitioners and the respondents did not take possession of the land, the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Voltas case, stands vitiated and therefore the petitioners are entitled to retain the land and the petitioners may be permitted to approach the concerned Authority with a request to get the land mutated in the name of the petitioners accordingly. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the possession of the land has not been taken by the State Government, which is also reflected in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector (Competent Authority) under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. 7. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsels. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Voltas case. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the land which was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act belonging to the petitioners has not been taken by the respondents. In that view of the matter as well as the 4 observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in last portion of paragraph 14, which reads thus : “ .......Perusal of the above referred paragraph from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Repeal Act shows that the Principal Act was required to be repealed because of the unanimous public opinion that not only the Principal Act has failed to activate what was expected of it but it has pushed up the land prices to unconscionable levels. In this background, therefore, if despite clear words used in the Repeal Act, it is held that the Government continues to hold title of those lands of which possession is not taken though after the Repeal Act came into force it ceases to have power to take possession of those lands, ceases to have power to decide the amount to be paid under the Principal Act, in our opinion, will defeat the very intention of the legislature in enacting the Repeal Act. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that neither the proceedings after the remand order made by the State Government can continue after 29.11.2007 nor can the State Government claim that the land of the petitioners which was subject matter of the notification under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has not been taken by the State Government continues to vest in the State Government.” it is implicitly clear that the proceedings initiated by the respondents after 5 the Repeal Act came into force with effect from 29th November 2007 stands vitiated and the land in question shall not vest in the State Government. It is open for the petitioners to approach the respondent No.2 with a request for mutating the land in the name of the petitioners accordingly. With these observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)