-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1000 OF 2008 NO.1000 OF 2008 NO.1000 OF 2008 Shri Namdev B. Kamble and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, ULC, Nashik and ors. ...Respondents Mr M.J. Jamdar for Petitioners. Ms M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Admittedly, the land from the holding of the petitioners was declared as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. Thereafter, Notification dated 15th February 2007 was issued under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and Notice under subsection (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 23rd May 2007 directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the land. According to the averments in the petition, possession of the land declared as surplus, however, was not taken by the Government till 29th November 2007 when the Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999. According to the petitioners, a notice was issued to them on 12th November 2007 informing that possession of the land would be taken on 17th November 2007. Therefore, they approached this Court. Petition was filed on 30th January 2008 claiming that in view of the Repeal Act 1999, the State Government cannot continue with the proceedings and the land reverts back to them. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.8356 of 2006 (Voltas Ltd. and anr. v/s -3- Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and ors.) decided on 25th July 2008 to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) is a party. However, it is found that as per the above judgment, in case the Government or the Competent Authority had not taken possession of the land in accordance with law on or before the date on which the Act was repealed, then the land reverts back to the land owner and no further proceedings under the said Act can be taken. In this case, the fact whether the possession of the land was taken by the Government in accordance with law before 29th November 2007 is in dispute. According to the petitioners, such possession was not taken, however, according to the Government possession was taken in accordance with law on 17th November 2007. In our opinion, therefore, as this a disputed question of fact, it cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to file civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The petition therefore cannot be entertained and is rejected. All contentions available to both the sides are kept open. As the petitioners intend to file civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs, despite disposal of the petition, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in relation to the land which is subject matter of this petition for a period of eight weeks from today. Petition is disposed off with no order as to costs. -4- . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)