-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.8661 OF 2007 NO.8661 OF 2007 NO.8661 OF 2007 Shri Ratan Bhimashankar Tambe and ors. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr H.E. Palve with Mr S. Deshpande for Petitioners. Mr A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Admitted position is that the lands from the holding of the petitioners were declared as surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. Thereafter, Notification dated 8th February 2007 was issued under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and Notice under subsection (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 13th September 2007 directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the lands. At that juncture, the petitioners approached this Court challenging that order. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that this Court by its judgment of the Division Bench in writ petition No.8356 of 2006 (Voltas Ltd. and anr. v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and ors.) decided on 25th July 2008, to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) is a party, has held that after the Act was repealed by the Repeal Act 1999, all proceedings pending lapse and the land reverts back to the land owner. In the instant case, however, it can be seen that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, there is a specific statement made that the Government has taken possession -3- of the lands on 29th November 2007 and mutation entry accordingly has been made in the revenue record. This position is disputed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are in possession of the lands. In our opinion, as a result of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, the position is clear that if the possession of the land which is declared as surplus under the said Act is not taken in accordance with law on or before 29th November 2007 then further proceedings lapse and the land reverts back to the land owner. However, for that purpose, the land owner has to establish that possession of the land was with the land owner as on 29th November 2007 and was not taken by the State Government in accordance with law. In this petition, as we have found that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the Government whether the possession of lands was taken by the Government on 29th November 2007 or not, Civil Court would be appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. In this view of the matter therefore, the petition will have to be dismissed. Rule in the petition will have to be discharged. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a civil suit seeking appropriate relief from the Civil Court. As according to us, appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file a civil suit, some interim arrangement is required to be made till the civil suit is filed. Petition is disposed off, however, -4- both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in relation to the lands which are subject matter of this petition for a period of eight weeks from today. No order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)