1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4337 OF 2009 Harishchandra Gajanan Bhoir ..Petitioner versus The Competent Authority – Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir with Ms. B. John i/b. M/s. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane – AGP for Respondents – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 14th August 1976 return under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was filed by the petitioner with respondent No. 1. On 15th October 1980 respondent No. 1 passed an Order under the provisions of Section 8(4) of the ULC Act and declared 2246.50 sq. meters as surplus 2 land within the meaning of ULC Act. On 15th March 2000 a Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was prepared by respondent No.1 which was published in the Official Gazette on 4th January, 2001. Respondent No.1 did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of the ULC Act and without complying with the provisions of Rules 5 and 7 of the ULC Act, 1976 proceeded to prepare Notification under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act. On 10th February 2005 Notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued by the respondent No.1 and notice to the petitioner for handing over of the possession in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land in question within thirty days was issued. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner as on today is in physical and factual possession of the land and therefore in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane & Ors. reported in 2008(5) ALL MR page 537, the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of ULC Act stands vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to retain the land in question. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the 3 factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the petitioner is in factual possession of the land in question as on today and the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. 5. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsels. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in physical and factual possession of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the issue stands concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Voltas case. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in last portion of paragraph 14, which reads thus : “ .......Perusal of the above referred paragraph from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Repeal Act shows that the Principal Act was required to be repealed because of the unanimous public opinion that not only the Principal Act has failed to activate what was expected of it but it has pushed up the land prices to unconscionable levels. In this background, therefore, if despite clear words used in the Repeal Act, it is held that the Government continues to hold title of those lands of which possession is not taken though after the Repeal Act came into force it ceases to have power to take possession of those lands, ceases to have power to decide the amount to be paid under the Principal Act, in our 4 opinion, will defeat the very intention of the legislature in enacting the Repeal Act. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that neither the proceedings after the remand order made by the State Government can continue after 29.11.2007 nor can the State Government claim that the land of the petitioners which was subject matter of the notification under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has not been taken by the State Government continues to vest in the State Government.” In view of the above referred observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that if the possession of the land is not taken by the respondents after the Repealed Act came into force i.e. with effect from 29th November, 2007, in that event the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act stands vitiated, consequently, petitioner is entitled to retain the possession of the land and the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the ULC Act stands vitiated. The Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed either the factual or legal aspect of the matter. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)