13.wp.251.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.251 OF 2009 Narendra J. Agarwal. ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate i/b. R.J. Singh & Co. for the Petitioner. ... CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 15, 2010. P.C. 1. The possession of the land which is subject matter of the present Petition was taken under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. By the present Petition, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 11(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as unconstitutional. The Act since then has been repealed and in the light of that, this prayer clause cannot be sustained. 13.wp.251.09 2 3. The next prayer clause is that the appeal should be decided on merits. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay. The appeal was barred by nine years. Even there is no period of limitation considering the law as declared, one has to consider the cause. The cause cannnot be said to be reasonable. Even otherwise, we find no reason to interfere with the order and the relief under the prayer clause (b) would not be available to the petitioner. Insofar as prayer clauses (c) & (d) is concerned, as possession has already been taken, question of relief under prayer clause (c) & (d) would not arise. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)