1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5053/2008 Anant Sukur Patil PETITIONER VS. RESPONDENT Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & Ors. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the petitioner Mr.Gokhale,AGP for State CORAM: J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 5th May, 2009 P.C.(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . Rule. 2] Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3] This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against the notice dated 12/12/2006 issued under sections 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976(in short the said U.L.C.R.Act of 1976) 2 for handing over the possession of the surplus vacant land . 4] The petitioner is holding the lands within Thane District and he had filed Return under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act,1976 .The Competent Authority adjudicated the said Return and declared some lands of the petitioner as surplus vacant lands under section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)Act ,1976(U.L.C.R.Act) by order dated 11/9/1992. Pursuant to the said order the Competent Authority issued notification under section 10(1) of the U. L. C.R. Act on 8/6/2005. Thereafter the Competent Authority issued notification under section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act directing the respondents to hand over the possession as contemplated under section 10(5) of the U.L.C.R.Act. It is contended that in the said notification under sections 10(1), 10(3), and 10(5) of the U.L.C.R. Act the land of the petitioner bearing survey no.675/5 was not mentioned. It is further contended that the repealed Act (The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 Act of 1976 ) came into force on 29/11/2007 and till that date the possession of the land was not taken by the respondents and therefore, the notice issued u/s 10(3) of the U.L.C.R.Act,1976 does not survive and the proceedings initiated under section 8(4) and 10 of the 3 U.L.C.R. Act 1976 are to be set aside. Hence this petition. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since survey no.675/5 is not at all reflected in any of the notice the respondent cannot have any claim over the said land. For the abatement of the proceedings he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Voltas & Ors. Vs.Additional Collector & Competent Authority & Ors., 2008 (5)Bom.C.R.746.(SLP (Civil) Nos.25745/08 impugning the decision dismissed on 7/1/2008 by Supreme Court of India. 6] The respondent State has filed affidavit and the learned A.G.P.made statement based on the affidavit that inspite of the notice issued under section 10(5)of the U.L.C.R.Act,1976 to the petitioner,the petitioner had not delivered possession of the land in dispute to the Government and still is in possession of the said land. 7] It is not disputed by the State that possession of the surplus vacant land remains with the petitioner. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State it is admitted that notification issued under section 10(1) (3) and (5) does not contain the survey numbers of the petitioner’s land . 4 The explanation offered is that it is by error. If this is so then there is no notification issued in respect of the petitioner’s land that it was an error no effort was made by the State to rectify the error before the said Act got repealed. 8] Section 4 of the Repeal Act ,1999reads as follows :- Section-4-Abatement of Legal Proceedings - All legal proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act ,before any Court, tribunal or other authority shall abate; In view of the fact that State has not taken possession over the surplus land; the proceedings under the said U.L.C.R.Act of 1976 have abated. This legal proposition is well settled in the case of Ghasiteylal Sahu and Anr. Vs. Competent Authority (2004) ,13 Supreme Court,452; Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.,AIR ,2007,Supreme Court,6282; followed by the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in Voltas and Others Vs.Additional Collector & Competent Authority ,2008(5) Bom.C.R.746 (cited supra). 9] The Petition will therefore have to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under : 5 ‘’ By issuing necessary writ/direction/order,the proceedings initiated under section 8(4) and proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act ,1976 be set aside or declared as abated’’. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. (J.N.Patel) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)