1 wp6185-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3003 OF 2010 Suresh Kesarimal Shah. .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Anil Rajadhyaksha, Sr. Adv., with Ms. Nita Solanki i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Ajay Fernandes i/by Mr. Kalpesh Joshi for the Applicant in the Intervener CAW No. 3003/10. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DECEMBER 20, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. RajadhyaKsha, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Kiran Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Gokhale, the learned AGP., appears for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the notifications dated 13.7.2006 and 30.8.2006 as well as the order passed on 20.6.2006 by the 2 wp6185-10 Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 3. Mr. Gokhale, the learned AGP., has pointed out the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by this Court (D.B.) in Writ Petition Nos. 8852, 8666, 8668 of 2007, 8656/07, 9333/07, 9336/07 and writ petition no. 3374/08. Writ Petition No. 3374 of 2008 was filed by the Society i.e. Pawan Baug Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The present petitioner is the owner of the land which was subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3374 of 2008. Para 2 and 3 of the order passed by the Division Bench on 7.12.2009 read as under :- “2. Affidavits of the Competent Officer have been filed in all these cases admitting the fact that the possession so far had not been taken. In view of the above admitted position of fact and t he settled principle of law in view of the judgment of this Court in the case ofVoltas Ltd. & Anr. v. Additional Collector & Com petent Authority & Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the Petitioners would be entitled to retain their lands and no further action can be taken under the 3 wp6185-10 provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 which Act in fact already stands repealed. 3. In view of the above cases, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The Petitioners are entitled to retain their respective lands in their possession.” 4. It is thus clear that by following the law laid down in the case of Voltas Ltd., & Anr. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, (2008 (5) Bombay Cases Reporter, 746), the Division Bench held that the petitioners therein would be entitled to retain their lands and no further action can be taken under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which Act has already been repealed. The petitions were allowed and it was directed that the petitioners would be entitled to retain their lands in their possession. 5. Mr. Gokhale, the learned AGP., therefore, submitted that in view of the declaration made by this Court in the above stated order dated 7.12.2009, the impugned circulars/orders in this petition would not survive any more and, therefore, we hereby clarify that in view of the order passed 4 wp6185-10 on 7.12.2009 in the above stated group of petitions, the circulars/notifications/orders impugned in this petition do not survive as the petition is disposed of with this clarification. We direct the State of Maharashtra to take further appropriate steps through the concerned authorities for deletion of mutation entries. C.A. No. 3003/10 does not survive. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)