1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4394 OF 2009 Smt.Hirabai Kondi Karande & ors. : Petitioners versus The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Kolhapur Urban Agglomeration Kolhapur and another : Respondents. Mr.Yashodhan Sakhare i/by M/s.YKS Legal for the Petitioners. Mr Vinay Sonpal, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 21st July 2009 P.C. 1. Rule, with consent of the parties returnable fortwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition can be disposed of on a very short and admitted point between the parties. The land of the Petitioners has been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and, order under Section 8(4) of the said Act was passed by the competent 2 authority on 6th December 2008. Thereafter the Respondents were supposed to take possession of the land in question by following the procedure as laid down under Section 10 of the said Act.. It appears that actions under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act were taken by the Respondents on 23rd October 2007 and 23rd November 2007. In spite of these actions, the possession of the land was not delivered by the Petitioners to the Respondents. Therefore, the Respondents ought to have taken action under Section 10(6) of the said Act for taking forcible possession of the land in question. However, from the affidavit filed on record it appears that the possession has not been taken by following the procedure under Section 10(6) of the said Act and it is admitted that the possession of the land in question is with the Petitioners. 3. The similar aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court (comprising of D.K.Deshmukh and V C Daga, JJ) in the case of Voltas Ltd and Anr v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration & ors, in Writ Petition No. 8356 of 2006. In the said case, the Division Bench has taken a view that if the possession of the land has not been taken by the Respondents­State Authorities on the date of the Repel of the said Act, the proceedings abated and the Respondents cannot take possession of the property. The 3 Repel Act came into force on 29th November 2007 and, therefore since on that date, the Petitioners are in possession of the land in question, the ULC proceedings abated and the possession of the land cannot be taken by the Respondents in view of the above referred judgment of this Court. 4. We therefore allow the above Petition. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). sd/­ sd/­ [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]