1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3686 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3686 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3686 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2255 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2255 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2255 OF 2008 Mohandas Hirachand Navlakha. . .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms. Kiran Bagalia i/by M/s. Asha Bhambhwani for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondents 1 & 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. . The civil application no. 2255 of 2008 is allowed. Amendments to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Urban 2 Land Ceiling Act 1976 do not apply to the agricultural land sold by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 vide agreement for sale dated 30.8.1973 and that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 should release the land which forms subject matter of the petition from the ULC Act and deliver the said land to the petitioner free of any charge/encumbrance thereof with a further declaration that the respondents had no power to acquire and hold the petitioner’s land under the said Act and all proceedings, orders of the respondents pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside with a direction to deliver to the petitioner the portion of the land free of any charge/encumbrance thereon. 4. The petitioner’s case is based on an alleged agreement of sale which the petitioner claims to have entered into with respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are admittedly the original owners of the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.8.1973 respondent nos. 4 and 5 entered into a registered agreement for sale whereby they agreed to sell the said land to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre and the petitioner paid Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money and was put in physical possession. The land in question is described as survey no. 1368 and accordingly the petitioner got his name recorded in the third column of the 7 x 12 extract. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner made payment of entire consideration to respondent nos. 4 and 5 3 they did not execute final sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner never went to the civil court by filing any suit for specific performance. In the meantime, the Urban Land Ceiling Act came to be enacted and was applicable to the land in question. The original owners i.e. Shri Jagannath Kanhu Gophane and Sopan Balu Gophane filed a statement under section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the Competent Authority on 15.9.1976 and an inquiry was conducted and the Competent Authority passed an order under Section 8 (4) of the ULC Act, 1976 and declared and held that there is 56314.84 sq. mtrs. excess vacant land from Survey No. 37/1 of village Kharadi as per the returns which are numbered as 796-GO and 798-GO. 5. The owners / declarants preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune against the order passed by the Competent authority under Section 8 (4) of the said Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 16.3.1989. Thereafter the Competent Authority issued the final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act and notification under section 10(1) of the said Act came to be issued on 6.2.1979. The said survey number was earmarked for Pune Area and Housing Development Authority, Pune and notice under section 10(5) of the ULC Act for taking possession of excess vacant land was issued on 13.9.1983 and possession of excess vacant land from survey no. 37/1 of area 4 admeasuring 56314.84 sq. mtrs. was taken on 19.6.1985 and the land was handed over to Pune Area and Housing Development Authority, Pune which has started developing the land. For all this period the petitioner slept over his right and did not agitate the matter before any forum. 6. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner’s name finds place in 7 x 12 extract, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent State to have issued notice to the petitioner before initiating the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. Our attention has been drawn to the copy of the 7 x 12 extract annexed to the petition which only states that there is an agreement between the petitioner and the original owners which entry has been recorded in other rights column of 7 x 12 extract and that he is cultivating the land. 7. We find that if this was the fact situation, then, nothing prevented the petitioner from taking steps at the time when the authority took over possession of the land from the owners. As the petitioner has slept over his right, if any, we do not find that he can now agitate the issue after the lapse of more than 23 years by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. 5 (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)