1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2572 OF 2007 Maredia Associates and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1842 OF 2004 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2602 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2716 OF 2007 Mr.Y.A.Sakhare for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2572 of 2007 Mr.Vikrant Narkar i/b Mr.H.S.S.Murthy for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1842 of 2004 Mr.T.N.Subramaniam, Sr.Advocate i/b M/s.Shah & Sanghavi for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2602 of 2007 Mr.Ryan D’souza i/b M/s.Pravin Mehta Mithi & Co. for the petitioner in Writ Petiiton No.2716 of 2007 Mr.A.K.Patil for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.1842 of 2004 Mr.G.Hariharan for Union of India Mr.D.A.Nalavade, G.P. for the State Ms.A.K.Savla for the B.M.C. 2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these Writ Petitions are filed by land owners whose lands came within the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for short (U.L.C. Act) and in most of the cases, the Competent Authority has declared part of the land as surplus under section 8(4) of the U.L.C. Act which has been subsequently confirmed and notification under section 10(3) of the U.L.C. Act came to be issued. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the U.L.C.Act came to be repealed by the Maharashtra Legislature by adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by passing a resolution on 29.11.2007 as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India and the repealing act came to be notified on 1.12.2007. 3 4. It is not disputed that inspite of declaration of the surplus land under section 10(3) of the Principal Act being notified in the Gazette and in some cases though notice for taking over possession under section 10(5) of the principal Act have been served, the possession of the land continued with the petitioners. 5. It is a common ground raised by the petitioners that by virtue of the repealing act, all proceedings initiated under the principal Act would stand abated and, therefore, the impugned orders declaring the land of the petitioners as surplus under subsection (3) of section 10 of the principal Act would not survive as the proceedings should be treated as abated. 6. Section 4 of the Repeal Act reads as follows: "4. Abatement of legal proceedings - All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the 4 commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate; Provided that the section shall not apply to proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority." 7. Therefore, in view of the undisputed fact that the State has not taken the possession of the surplus land, the proceedings had to be treated to have abated under section 4 of the Repeal Act. 8. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Mukarram Ali Mukarram Ali Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2007 Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2007 Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2007 (11) SCC 90 (11) SCC 90 (11) SCC 90 wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the identical case relating to the adoption of the Repeal Act of 1999 by the State of U.P. and the consequence thereof and it was held as under: "It is to be noted that the 1976 Act has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Admittedly the State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted the provisions of the Repeal Act by a resolution as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of 5 India. The repealing Act has since come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 18-3-1999. (Para 4) In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, the undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act." 9. The learned counsel appearing for the parties also drew our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.8356 of 2006 rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd and Anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration and Ors. which judgment came to be delivered on 25.07.2008 and this court after examining various facets of the consequence of the Repealing Act held that as a consequence of the Repealing Act further proceedings initiated by the State Government will abate and can no longer be proceeded further. 10. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. (Supra) and that of Voltas Ltd and Anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, 6 Thane Urban Agglomeration and Ors. (Supra), we are disposing of all these petitions by holding that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which has been adopted by the State of Maharashtra as aforestated, the subject land in all the petitions of which possession has not been taken by the State Government all proceedings initiated against the petitioners will stand abated. 11. The learned G.P. submits that the State proposes to challenge the decision in the case of Voltas Ltd (Supra) and as this court has disposed of all these petitions, in view of the decision referred to by this court in Voltas Ltd, the effect and operation of the operative order passed by this court be stayed for a period of 10 weeks. 12. The request of the Ld.G.P. is granted. The order disposing of the petitions in the light of the decision in the case of Voltas Limited is held in abeyance for a period of 10 weeks. 13. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms 7 with no order as to costs. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )