-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.9074 OF 2007 NO.9074 OF 2007 NO.9074 OF 2007 Raosaheb R. Borade ...Petitioner v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Nashik and ors. ...Respondents Mr R.D. Soni i/b M/s Ram and Co. for Petitioner. Mr A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.Y. GANOO JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the Notification issued under section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 dated 14th September 2007. The relevant admitted facts are that one Rambhau Fakira Borade, of whom the petitioner is one of legal representatives, had filed return under the said Act on 25th July 1999. A statement under section 8(1) of the said Act was prepared in November 1990. Thereafter, a Notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act was issued which is dated 30th May 2007 which was published in the Official Gazette on 21st June 2007. Rambhau who had filed the return, expired on 28th June 2003. Obviously therefore, the Notification issued under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act in relation to the land of dead person was ineffective. Thereafter, notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 14th September 2007 to the legal representative of Rambhau, the present petitioner. The challenge of the petitioner is that without issuing fresh Notification to him under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act, -3- notice under section 10(5) could not have been issued. Notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act has not been issued admittedly against the present petitioner. That Notification mentioned the name of Rambhau who was dead in June 2003. 3. We have heard additional Government Pleader appearing for the State. He does not dispute that Rambhau was no more on the date on which the Notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act was issued as also on 21st June 2007 when the Notification was published in the Official Gazette. In this view of the matter therefore, we have no alternative but to set aside the notice issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act. It is accordingly so ordered. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.Y. GANOO J.)