1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.867 OF 2008 Smt.Annie Anton Fariya ...Petitioner Versus The Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.G.Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 29, 2010. P.C. 1. Inspite of opportunity given to the Respondents to file affidavit in terms of order dated 30th March 2010 and subsequent order dated 12th April 2010, no affidavit was filed before this Court. As a result, hearing of the Petition was required to be deferred. Eventually on 27th April 2010, we had no option but to observe that even if the Respondents were to rely on affidavit, the Officer who was supposed to file affidavit shall be liable to pay cost personally for the inaction in filing the affidavit within time. Accordingly, the additional affidavit which is tendered across the Bar today, which is sworn on 29th April 2010 by Shri B.J.Patil, Additional Collector & 2 The Competent Authority, ULC, Thane is taken on record on condition that the said Officer shall pay cost quantified at Rs.1,000/- to High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today. 2. It is made clear that the amount so paid by the Officer shall not be reimbursed from Public Exchequer. We now proceed to examine the matter on merits on clear understanding that the Office will abide by the above direction. 3. Heard Counsel for the parties. 4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 to 3. 5. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 6. In this Petition, the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the Appropriate Authority has taken over possession of the subject surplus vacant lands before the date of repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 3 1999. (2) If the answer to the above question is no, whether it is open to the Appropriate Authority to proceed against the disputed land inspite of repeal of the said enactment in 1999. 7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents clearly admits that possession of disputed lands continues with the Petitioner(s)/Declarant(s). The affidavit of Mr.B.J.Patil which is tendered today, in clear terms in Paragraph 2 accepts that the possession of the surplus land is not obtained by the Government and the same is still with the holder. Thus, the answer to the first question is obviously in favour of the Petitioners. 8. On this admitted position, we would proceed to examine the second question. That question, however, has now been authoritatively answered in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) BCR 746, which view has been upheld by the Apex Court. 4 The inevitable order that would follow in such a situation is to hold that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 have lapsed and abated qua the lands held and possessed by the Petitioner(s)/Declarant(s). In that view of the matter, the Petition ought to succeed. 9. Accordingly, Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) with no order as to costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)