1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5236 OF 2009 Narayan s/o. Baburao Bobade, Aged about 54 yrs., Occ. Agrilst., r/o. Chichbhuvan, Tq. and Distt. Nagpur, acting through his duly constituted attorney Shri. Kamlesh Chandrashekhar Dadhe, aged about 48 yrs., Occ. Business, r/o. Swami Apartment, behind Lokmat Building, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. ........ PETITIONERS // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Competent Authority and Additional Collector (ULC), Collectorate, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3. The Tahsildar, Tehsil Office, Nagpur (Rural), Civil Lines, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS 2 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. C.V.Kale, Adv. for petitioner. Mr.D.B.Patel, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ********* Date of reserving the Judgment : 11.12.2009. Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 17.12.2009. ********* CORAM : D.D.Sinha & F. M. Reis, JJ. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D. D. Sinha, J) : 1. Heard Mr. C. V. Kale, Counsel for petitioner and Mr.D.B.Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Rule returnable forthwith by the consent of parties. 2. Petitioner filed return on 27.9.2006 under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”). On 25.3.1983, order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act has been passed whereby land admeasuring 1,500 sq. meters out of the said lands has been declared retainable and the land admeasuring 28,218.66 sq. meters has been declared surplus. On 2.11.1989, notification under Section 10 (3) of the ULC Act was published in the Government Gazette. On 16.11.1989, the competent Authority issued a notice under Section 3 10(5) of the ULC Act which has not been received by the petitioner. No action for taking possession of petitioner’s lands was initiated. Petitioner is in physical and actual possession of the land even today. 3. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the ULC Act has been repealed on 29.11.2007 by the Government of Maharashtra after adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is submitted that physical possession of the land in question is with the petitioner (owner) and the issue in question is covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (5) ALL MR 537, Voltas Ltd. and anr. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane and Ors. It is, therefore, contended that present petition may kindly be allowed in view of law declared by this Court in terms of prayer clause (i). 4. The Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that possession of the land in question is with owner of the land i.e. petitioner. It is also not disputed that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court reported in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another (cited supra). 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that possession of land is still with the petitioner and the issue is covered by the decision of this 4 Court reported in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another (cited supra). The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another is considered by this Court in the case of Waman Sukhdeo Tabhane and Ors. (cited supra) and in para 4 of the said decision, it is observed thus : “ We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the decision of this Court, cited supra. We feel it necessary to reproduce the concluding portion of the said decision, which reads thus :- “ 14................ .................... ....................... 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 5 those lands, ceases to have power to decide the amount to be paid under the Principal Act, in our 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. “ 6. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and anr. (cited supra) which is affirmed by the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that if possession of the surplus land is not taken by the Government, all the proceedings under the provisions of the Principal Act in relation to the land mentioned in the declaration under sub-section (3) of Section (10) of the Principal Act lapses and these lands do not vest in the State Government. 7. In view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court and considering the facts involved in the matter, we are of the view that the 6 present petition is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the surplus land in question does not vest in the Government and further proceedings, if any initiated stand abated. In the circumstances, we direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to delete the name of State Government from the 7/12 extracts in respect of land admeasuring 2.57 Hectors of Khasra No.192-194-195/2 (admeasuring 0.39 Hectors), Khasra nos. 197, 198, 199 (admeasuring 1.21 Hectors) and Khasra No.196 (admeasuring 0.97 Hectors) of mouza Chichbhuvan, P.H.No.43, Tq. and District Nagpur and if the petitioner approaches the Revenue Authorities for mutation, they are directed to pass orders accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jaiswal