1 WP 591 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.591 of 2008 Tanaji Gopal Bhoir and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Deepak Natu i/by M/s.N.Deepak and Co., for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondent State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 27th July, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 06-11-2007, by which the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 10(3) and 10(5) were upheld. 3. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos. 1/4, 2/1 (Part), 2/1 (part), 5/7, 12/6, 12/8 (part), 12/8 (part), 11/0, 12/12, 15/7 and 17/2, total admeasuring 40946 sq. mtrs. of Village Kohoj Khuntavali, Tal. Ambarnath, Dist. Thane. The predecessors of the petitioners on the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, coming into force, filed a Return under Section 6(1) of the Act, before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority on 14-08-1976. The filing of the 2 WP 591 of 2008 return resulted in a order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, on 31-12-1983. By the said order, an area admeasuring 40,946 sq. mtrs., was declared as surplus land. 4. It appears that thereafter, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, came to be issued on 12-07-1985, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) dated 16-11-2005. Thereafter, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, came to be issued on 18-01-2006. It is irrefutable that no scheme was ultimately sanctioned by the State Government in respect of the area declared as surplus, since the petitioner did not submit any such scheme under Section 20 of the Act.. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to be benefit of the repeal of the U.L. (C & R) Act, which came into force in the State of Maharashtra from 29-11-2007. 6. On behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, an additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed, by Mr.Kamlesh Sakharam Sonale, In-charge Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane. In the said affidavit, a categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land was not taken by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. Considering the said 3 WP 591 of 2008 factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another V/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Rule is accordingly made absolute, with parties to bear their own costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )