7.wp.8302-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.8302 OF 2009 Balkrishna Balaji Bhoir and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate i/b. Mr.S.S. Kanetkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for the Respondent - State. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") the petitioner had filed return. On that return, order was made on 26.8.1984. By that order, the land admeasuring 24,629.92 square meters was declared as 7.wp.8302-09 2 surplus. Notification under sub-section 1 of Section 10 was issued on 4.4.1985. Notification under sub section 3 of Section 10 was issued on 5.1.2006. According to the respondent, notice under sub-section 5 of Section 10 was issued on 20.2.2006. The case of the petitioner is that he never received notice under sub-section 5 of Section 10. According to the petitioner on 29.11.2007 when the ULC Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 he was in possession of the land and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Voltas’s case all further proceedings lapsed. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Government and in para-3 of the reply categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land is not taken by the Government. Thus, the case of the petitioner insofar as that he is in possession of the land is concerned, it is established. In this view of the matter therefore in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the 7.wp.8302-09 3 Division Bench of this Court in Volta’s case (supra), the Petition will have to be allowed. Petition is accordingly succeed and is allowed as such. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)