1 srk wp-826-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 826 OF 2010 William Joseph Gracias and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents Mr.A.G. Damle o/by Mr. J.P. Dubey and Mr. A.J. DUbey for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Tuesday, March 01, 2011 P .C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that consequent upon the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 by adoption of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 29th November, 2007 in the State of Maharashtra, the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 in respect of the land described in prayer clause (a) of this petition abated and, therefore, the impugned orders passed subsequently on 28th February, 2008 and 20th August, 2008 are non est and liable to be set aside. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-authorities submits that since the possession notice under section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued on 2nd December, 2006 calling upon the landlord to hand over the possession of the land and since he was absent, 2 srk wp-826-10.sxw the possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District on 29th December, 2006. Therefore, there is no question of abatement of proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is clearly a disputed question of fact as to the possession taken over by the authorities prior to 29th November, 2007. 4. Our attention is therefore, invited to the decision dated 18th January, 2010 of another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.166 of 2009 laying down that when such disputed question of fact arises, the parties be relegated at the Civil Court. 5. Following the aforesaid decision, we relegate the petitioners to the Civil Court for raising the disputed question of fact as to whether the respondent-authorities have taken over possession of the land in question prior to 29th November, 2007 or not. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above observations. 6. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we extend the ad-interim order requiring the parties to maintain status-quo for a period of four weeks from today. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.