-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8999 OF 2007 Subhash Rajaram Sasane ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 29, 2010. P.C. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The petitioner, by way of the above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 15th November, 2007, passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevities sake referred to as “the Act”) in respect of survey No. 76/6 and 76/19 situate at village Hadapsar, Pune. By the said order, the revisional authority has set aside the order dated 28-11-2000 passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Pune i.e. Respondent No.2 herein and has sanctioned the scheme under Section 20 of the Act as also directed that in case the petitioner is not interested in submitting the scheme, -2- the petitioner may pay the market value of the land in question declared as surplus at the ready reckoner rates. The petitioner has also been further informed that in case he does not abide by the directions, recovery would be made of the amounts due to the Government as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner has also been threatened with criminal prosecution. The principal ground on which the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order is that the said revisional proceedings have been initiated after a period of 7 years of the 8 (4) order passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority. The second ground of challenge is that the directions issued by the revisional authority could not have been issued by taking recourse to the powers under Section 34 of the Act. In so far as the said two issues are concerned, the same are no more res integra and are covered by Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 153 of 2008 to which one of us (Majmudar, J. ) was a party. In an identical fact situation, the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition has quashed and set aside the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay and also on the ground that no such directions could be issued under Section 34 of the said Act. 3. The said legal position has not been disputed by the learned AGP appearing for the State. However, the learned AGP would contend that in the instant case a scheme under Section 20 of the Act has been sanctioned unilaterally by the State Government by the revisional order and that such -3- directions could be issued by the State Government in the revisional jurisdiction. In so far as the said submission is concerned, we are at a loss to understand as to how the State could have sanctioned the scheme whilst dealing with the matter in revision and especially in the light of the fact that no such scheme was submitted by the petitioner. Be that as it may, in so far as the said scheme is concerned, though by the impugned order the petitioner was mandated to take certain steps, no such steps were taken by the petitioner and in the meantime the Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and, therefore, on the date when the said Repeal Act came into force, no such sanctioned scheme was in existence in the eye of law. The said factual positi0on was also subject matter of Writ Petition No. 8686 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 17th December 2009, in an identical fact situation, had allowed the said writ petition by quashing and setting aside the revisional order concerned therein. 4. In the light of the aforesaid, the petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). Rule is accordingly made absolute to the said extent. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.