1 W.P. No.476-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.476 OF 2009 Gajanan Kamalya Patil ..Petitioner Vs. The Competent Authority – Thane Urban Agglomeration & Ors. ..Respondents Shri Jaydeep S. Deo for the Petitioner Shri V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date: 4th August 2010 P.C. 1. The above Writ Petition concerns the Survey No.53/3 and 54/4 situated at Village Ovale, District Thane and Survey No.47/10 situated at Kasarvadavali, District Thane. The Petitioner who claims to be the owner of the said lands has on the basis of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the Repeal Act, 1999, has inter alia prayed for a declaration that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act in respect of the said lands have abated. 2. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.1669 of 2010 in which the subject matter was the land bearing Survey 2 W.P. No.476-09 Nos.47/10 and 54/4. The Petitioner was claiming a similar relief as claimed in the instant Petition in the said Petition. We by our Judgment and Order 12th July 2010, have allowed the Petition. In so far as the Survey No.54/4 is concerned, since the possession has already been handed over to the MMRDA and the mutation entry has been effected in favour of the MMRDA and the MMRDA has taken steps to secure the said land, we had directed the Petitioner to file a suit. Our observations in paragraph 9 and 10 of the said order are reproduced hereunder: “9 On behalf of the MMRDA it is contended by the learned counsel Ms Bagalia that the MMRDA is a local authority and has taken over the possession of the lands in question when asked to do so by the State Government and therefore it was not necessary for the MMRDA to go into the antecedents as to whether the possession of the lands in question was in fact obtained by the State Government. She further submitted that presently the MMRDA is in possession of the lands in question and has tried to protect its possession by employing security guards and putting up fencing. Though it is the case of the Petitioner that he is still in possession and he is cultivating the lands in question, the photographs produced by the MMRDA belie the said position. 10 In our view, since the MMRDA is in possession of land Survey No.54/4, it is not necessary for us to go into rival contentions. It would be open for the Petitioner to file appropriate civil suit to agitate his grievance in respect of possession. The Petitioner in the said suit would be entitled to rely upon the pleadings which are the part of the present proceedings. In case such a suit is filed by the Petitioner, needless to say that same would be tried on its own merits and in accordance with.” 3 W.P. No.476-09 3. It is pointed out to us by the Learned AGP that in respect of Survey No.53/3 which is the subject matter of the instant Petition a similar entry has been made in favour of the MMRDA in the revenue record as is made in respect of Survey No.54/4. In that view of the mater, the Petitioner would have to file a suit in respect of the land encompass in the said Survey No.53/3. Our observations in paragraphs 9 and 10 as reproduced herein above, would, therefore, apply to the said Survey No.53/3 also. In so far as Survey No.47/10 is concerned since we have already allowed Writ Petition No.1669 of 2010 and granted relief in respect of the said Survey No.47/10 it is not necessary for us to grant the said relief in the instant Petition. In the light of the above, we dispose of the above Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a suit in respect of Survey No.53/3 as above. If such a suit is filed the concerned Court would deal with it on its own merits and in accordance with law. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J.)