1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4032 OF 2009 Smt.Akkatai Babusing Rajput & Others ..Petitioners versus The Collector,Sangli and others ..Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Shivajirao Masal for Petitioners Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 19, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gokhale, leaned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of action of respondent No.3 of taking exparte possession of the land in question on 16th April 1985, contrary to the provisions of sub-section 5 of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976. It is contended by the petitioners that respondent No.3 had taken exparte possession of the land admeasuirng 2150 sq. mtr. out of survey No. 923/1B by using force as provided under sub-section 6 of 2 Section 10 of the ULC Act without giving or serving a statutory notice in writing as provided under sub-section 5 of Section 10 of ULC. Act. It is contended by the petitioners that the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 being contrary to the provisions of ULC Act and possession taken being forcible and is illegal, the whole action of respondent No.3 is bad in law and cannot be sustained in law. 2 Respondent No.2 filed a reply wherein it is specifically stated that the petition suffers from delay and latches. It is further stated that the possession of the land in question was taken after issuance of notice under section 10(5) of ULC Act dated 10th March, 1985 by registered post A.D. to the petitioners. The petitioners have received the said notice on 1st April 1985. The photocopy of the said notice dated 17-3-1985 and the postal acknowledgment dated 1st April, 1995 is annexed at Exh.1 to the affidavit- in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2. The learned AGP submitted that the contention canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioners are wholly incorrect and totally disputed. 3 Considered the contentions canvassed by the leaned respective Counsel. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the possession of the land in question was taken by respondents way back on 16th April, 1985 and the petitioners have approached this Court almost after 25 years 3 questioning the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 in taking possession of the land of the petitioners. The reason for delay in approaching the Court mentioned by the petitioners in para 7 reads thus:- "Considering the enforcement of Repeal Act and Judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court as also the representation of petitioner dated 19-3-2009, there is no delay/latches in filing present Writ petition". 4 That the above referred reason given by the petitioners for delay in our view is hopelessly inadequate to condone the delay and therefore, we are of the view that the petition suffers from delay and latches and needs to be dismissed on this count. Hence petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)