1 30 wp.4873.08.sxw ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2008 Parshuram Vishnu Tupe and anr. ... PETITIONERS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents. -------- CORAM : D.D. SINHA and A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 24 th February, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. 1 The learned counsel for the Petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the factual aspects of the matter, which are as follows: I. On 13.08.1976, the father of the Petitioners filed declaration under Section 6 (1) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 declaring that they are in the possession of 14793 sq. mtrs. land situated at Survey Nos. 209/2A/1, 209/2A/2, 209/5A, 209/5B, 165/A and 40/A, Malwadi, 2 30 wp.4873.08.sxw Hadapsar, Pune – 411 028. II. On 09.10.1995, the Respondent No.2 passed an order under Section 8 (4) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 in case No. 334 – TU – 4589 thereby declaring that the father of the Petitioners are holding surplus vacant land to the extent of 13793 sq. mtrs. III. On 08.11.1995, a notification was issued under Section 10 (1) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 was issued. IV. On 13.02.2007, a notice under Section 10 (3) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 was issued. V. On 05.09.2007, a notice under Section 10 (5) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 was issued. VI. On 29.11.2007, the Repealing Act came into force and therefore, all the orders passed under Section 8 (4) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 and the notification and notices issued under Section 10 (1), (3) & (5) of the U.L. (C & R) Act, 1976 shall stand abated, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority Thane & Ors. [2008 (5) ALL.MR 537] and the 3 30 wp.4873.08.sxw petitioners are entitled to retain the land admeasuring 13793 sq. mtrs. 2 The learned AGP has not disputed the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the controversy in question is totally covered by the law laid down by this Court in Voltas’s case. It is also not disputed by the learned AGP that the possession of the land in question admeasuring 13793 sq. mtrs. is still with the Petitioners. 3 Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the issue in question is covered by the decision in Voltas’s case. Similarly, the possession of the land in question is with the Petitioners. It is in this background, we want to reproduce some of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No. 14 of the Voltas’s judgment, 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 4 30 wp.4873.08.sxw 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 opinion, therefore, 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.” 4 From the perusal of the above referred observations, it is evident that, if the possession of the land in question on or after the Repealing Act came into force was / is with the land-owner, which was 5 30 wp.4873.08.sxw subject matter of notification under Section 10 (3) of the Principal Act cannot vest with the Government. In that view of the matter, all the orders passed under Section 8 (4) of the U.L. (C & R) Act and notification and notices under Section 10 (1), (3) & (5) of the U.L. (C & R) Act shall stand abated. 5 Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (d). No order as to costs. [ D.D. SINHA, J ] [ A.A. SAYED, J ]