pvr １ wp7418-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7418 OF 2010 1.Shri.Bhausaheb Baban Barate & Ors. ...Appellants vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv. i/b. Mr.Prashant Kulkarni, for Appellants. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.M.Pethe, for Respondent no.3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 20th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The facts necessary for deciding this Petition are that by an order dated 28th October,2002 made by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the Urban land pvr ２ wp7418-10 Ceiling Act, the land admeasuring 21610 square meters from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus. By an order dated 23.6.2006 passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority a Scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,1976 was sanctioned for the entire surplus land and the land was exempted from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act. Thereafter it appears that the petitioners made an application to the State Government dated 6.2.2008 praying that the two lands from his holding, viz., land bearing Survey Nos.81/2 & 81/3 do not have any access and, therefore, they should be declared that these lands are not vacant land. An application to the same effect, it appears, was again made. The application of the petitioners for declaration of the land from Survey Nos.81/2 & 81/3 is no vacant land is rejected by the State Government by order dated 20.8.2009. This order was challenged in Writ pvr ３ wp7418-10 Petition no.516 of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2.2.2010 set aside that order as that order was made by the State Government without granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It appears that thereafter the petitioners were heard and a fresh order has been made rejecting the application of the petitioners and at the same time granting extension to the exemption scheme till the petitioners are able to get the approach road. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submit that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case Ramniklal Mehta Vs. Y.A.Sathe which has been referred to by the State Government in its order dated 2.8.2010 it is clear that if any land does not have access then that land cannot be treated as vacant land. The land admeasuring 21610 sq.meters from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus. The petitioners, therefore, made an application for exemption of that land from the provisions of pvr ４ wp7418-10 the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. The State Government granted that application and sanctioned the scheme for exemption of the land from the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for development of the land. But Pune Municipal Corporation declined permission to develop the land in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 on the ground that there is no access to the land. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application before the State Government for declaration of land from Survey nos.81/2 & 81/3 admeasuring 9600 sq.meters as  no vacant land inasmuch as the land did not have access. Perusal of the order of the State Government, however, shows that according to the State Government if the petitioners continue to pursue their proposal for development of land in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 alongwith the land in Survey no.111/1, then there is access to the land. The Government however has granted extension to the scheme under Section 20 pvr ５ wp7418-10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, till the petitioners are able to get access to the land in Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3. The learned Counsel submitted that it is implicit in the order of the State Government itself that the land in survey nos.81/2 and 81/3 does not have access. 2. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State Government. He took us through the affidavit of Mr.Suresh M.Kakani filed on behalf of the State Government. The learned AGP submits that the petitioners deliberately withdrew this proposal for development of land in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 alongwith the land Survey no.111/1 to show that the lands in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 do not have access. 3. If in the light of these rival submission, if the record is perused, it is clear pvr ６ wp7418-10 that there is no dispute between the parties that so far as the land from Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3 is concerned, there is no access to that land by itself. That is the reason why the State Government has by the order which is impugned in the petition granted extension to the exemption scheme till the petitioners able to get access to Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3. The reason given by the State Government, in short, is that if the petitioners continue their proposal which was submitted by the petitioners for development of the land in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 alongwith the land in Survey no.111/1, then there is access to the land in Survey no.81/2 and 81/3, cannot be accepted. The State Government cannot force the petitioners to develop the land from Survey no. 81/2 and 81/3 alongwith any other land. While considering the question whether there is access to the land in Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3 , the question has to be considered independently, considering the situation of land from Survey pvr ７ wp7418-10 nos.81/2 and 81/3. Really speaking, the order of the State Government itself says that the State Government has also treated the land from Survey no.81/2 and 81/3 independently and therefore, the State Government has, while rejecting the application of the petitioners, granted extension to the Scheme under Section 20, till the petitioners get access to the land. In our opinion, it is clear from the order of the State Government itself that to the land from Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3, there is no access, and therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case Ramniklal Mehta Vs. Y.A.Sathe referred to above, the land from Survey nos.81/2 and 81/3 cannot be treated as vacant land for the purpose of determining the excess land in possession of the petitioner under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. The order of the State Government impugned in the petition is set aside. The application of the petition, copy of which is at Exhibit A-3 to the pvr ８ wp7418-10 petition, is granted. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)