1612mca840.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.840 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4728 of 2009 (D) (Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, Nagpur .vs. Shri Marotrao Zibaji Bobde and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 21/12/2011. Heard Mr.H.N.Varma, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.C.V.Kale, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr.D.P.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 10. This review petition is directed against the judgment dt.25.11.2009 whereby Writ Petition No.4728 of 2009 came to be allowed. Counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the factual and legal aspect involved in the present review petition is similar to one involved in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011. It is submitted that in U.L.C. Case No.2018/76 of mouza Chichbhuvan the land bearing Survey No.277/2 and 278/2 admeasuring 4.7 H.R. belonging to non- applicant no.1 came to be declared as surplus 1612mca840.11.odt 2 vacant land by the competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”) vide order dt.25.1.1977. Subsequent thereto, the State Government allotted the land admeasuring 10926.00 sq.mt. out of total surplus land to the applicant/Board. The notification u/s.10(3) of the ULC Act in respect of the afore-said surplus land of non-applicant was published in the Government Gazette on 2.11.1989 and notice dt.15.11.1989 u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act came to be issued by the competent Authority for delivery of possession of the said surplus land to the Tahsildar. Another notice u/s.10(5) was issued on 9.1.1991. However, neither the non-applicant hand over possession of the land in question nor it was taken by the State Government. It is, therefore, contended that, in view of issuance of notification u/s.10(3), the surplus land in question vested in the State Government and therefore, merely because possession thereof was not taken by the State Government on or before 29.11.2007, that does not either affect the efficacy of declaration u/s. 10(3) of the ULC Act nor affects the right of the applicant to claim possession of the said land. Hence, the Judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. 1612mca840.11.odt 3 Mr.D.P.Thakare, A.G.P. has not disputed that the issue involved in the present matter stands covered by the decision in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another .vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane and Others reported in 2008 (5) ALL MR 537. Similar is the stand taken by the Counsel for the other respondents. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. It is not in dispute that the factual and legal aspect involved in the present review petition is similar to one involved in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011 including the fact that the issue stands covered by the law declared by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another. Similarly, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment by this Court are based on the law declared in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another and therefore, they are sustainable in law. Hence, for the reasons stated by this Court in the order dt.21.12.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.954 of 2011, present review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais