1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2009 Dayanand Parshuram Patil .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.M.S. Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.V.S. Masurkar GP for the respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 23rd January 2009 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Karnik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. . Rule. . Mr.Masurkar, learned GP waives service for the respondent. Respondents have filed affidavit in reply and also brought on record copies of the order concerned. 2 . Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. . The petitioner had submitted statement u/s.6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ’the Act’) on 13th August 1976. Statement u/s.8(3) of the said Act was issued on 23rd February 1989 and order u/s.8(4) of the Act came to be passed on 17th May 1990. It appears that the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of exemption u/s.20 of the Act as per the guidelines issued on 22nd August 1986 and amended from time to time and the said application was allowed as per the order passed by the State Government on 29th July 2000 hereby exempting for the purpose of the scheme submitted by the petitioner an area admeasuring 450 sq.m. On 16th June 2005, the Government declared that as the area admeasuring 1815 sq.m. from the holding of the petitioner was surplus and by deducting the area covered by the scheme approved u/s.20 of the Act, net surplus area came to be 1365 sq.m. as per the order passed on 28th December 2006. The petitioner states that though the notices u/s.10(3) and 10(5) were issued in respect of the area admeasuring 1365 sq.m, the possession of the said land remained with him all along till the Act 3 was repealed on 29th November 2007. The petitioner further emphasises the fact that despite these notices the possession of the land admeasuring 1365 sq.m. remained with him even as of now and therefore he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. in Writ Petition no.8356 of 2006. He also relies upon the subsequent order passed in Writ Petition no.9062 of 2007 on 28th July 2008. . Admittedly, the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. was a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP which came to be dismissed. In Voltas case, this Court has held that consequent to the notice u/s.10(5) of the Act, if the State Government had not taken possession of the land declared surplus, any time before the repeal of the Act, the land does not remain within the purview of the Act and it will have to be returned to the owner. The same law as laid down by this court is applicable to the instant case as well and therefore this petition succeeds. . Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). . No order as to costs. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J)