Writ Petition No.9276/07 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9276 OF 2007 Ramji Gopal Patil ..Petitioner Vs. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Shri S.G.Karandikar for the Petitioner Ms P.S. Cardoza AGP for the State. Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 14th July, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who are the owner of certain lands in Thane District, have inter alia sought a relief that in view of the Repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for brevity sake referred to as the said Act), the proceedings initiated thereunder stand abated. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands bearing Survey No. 58/1, 2/31, 65/1, 67/7, 104/2pt, 65/5, 64/1, 76/15, 76/16. 113/5, 113/1, 109/6, 113/3 & 93/39 of Village Kasarvadavli, Tal Thane. Initially at the Petitioner’s filing returns under Section 6(1) of the said Act, the Additional Collector and Competent Authority passed an order under Section 8(4) on 1 Writ Petition No.9276/07 19-7-1995, by which order, the land ad measuring 8240 sq.mtrs. was declared as surplus vacant land. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 19-7-1995 filed an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. On 27-10-2006, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division by his order dated 16-5-2007 allowed the Appeal and set aside the Notification under Section 10(1), which had came to be issued by then. The Appellate Authority further directed the Competent Authority to revise the 8(4) order dated 19-7-1995. Accordingly the exercise of revision of the said 8(4) order was carried out and a fresh order under Section 8(4) came to be passed on 18-6-2007, declaring an area of 14400 sq.mts. as surplus vacant land. Against the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 16-5-2007, remanding the matter back to the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, the State Government preferred a revision under Section 34 after considerable lapse of time, in which revision an order came to be passed holding that the order under Section 34 passed by the Additional Commissioner was illegal. The State Government set aside the order dated 16-5-2007 and revised the 8(4) order and resultantly the 8(4) order passed on 19-7-1995 came to be restored. 3. The aforesaid facts have been stated only to complete the narration, the said facts have no relevance now in view of the Repeal of the said Act and in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the matter of Voltas Ltd. & ors. Vs. 2 Writ Petition No.9276/07 Additional Collector and Competent Authority reported in 2008(5) BCR 746, the factum of possession of the lands in question is a crucial determining factor as to whether the relief sought for by the Petitioner in the instant Petition can be granted. In so far as the said aspect is concerned an Affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Bhausaheb Joti Patil, the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane, in which affidavit in paragraph 22 it has been averred as under: “22. In addition to above referred facts, I state that the possession of the land in question is with the Petitioner and it is not obtained by the Government under the ULC Act.” 4. In the light of the view that the Division Bench of this Court has taken in Voltas Ltd. (Supra) and considering the admitted position as regards possession, which is mentioned in the Affidavit of Shri Bhausaheb Joti Patil, the above Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses b-1 and b-2. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their own costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) 3