1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.809 OF 2008 M/s Lunkad Coloned No.1 CHS Ltd. And others ...Petitioners v/s The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration and others ...Respondents Mr R.D. Soni i/b M/s Ram and Co. for Petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] Under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the petitioners filed return. An order was made by the Competent Authority pursuant to that return dated 12 th April 1999 holding that the petitioners do not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Thereafter, the land holders entered into the transaction in relation to the land, the land was sold, even constructions were made. It appears that thereafter the State Government initiated suo motu proceedings against the order dated 12 th April 1999. In those revisional proceedings, it was pointed out that after the order was passed in 1999, the land has been developed and third party rights have been created. The revision was disposed off by order dated 17 th November 2007. By that order, the order dated 12 th April 1999 holding that the petitioners do not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit 3 was set aside, because there were constructions made on the land, the land holder was directed to deposit price of the land as per ready reckoner within 30 days, failure of the petitioners to deposit the price of the land was to result in prosecution of the petitioners under the Act. Pursuant to the order dated 17 th November 2007, the Competent Authority made an order dated 19 th November 2007 directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.5,64,20,000/- pursuant to the order dated 17 th November 2007. The present petition is directed against these two orders. 3] We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Even assuming that the Government had the power and it was also justified in setting aside the order dated 12 th April 1999 and even assuming that the State Government has power to recover price of the land from the land holder, before directing recovery of the price of the land and before determining the price of the land, the least that will have to be done is that the extent of the land 4 which is in surplus of the ceiling limit with the land holders will have to be declared. Even assuming that the State Government has power to recover the price of the land, the State Government will be entitled to recover price only of the surplus land. Without making declaration of surplus land, no direction for recovery of the price can be made. We have serious doubts whether the State Government will have power to recover price of the land which according to it is surplus, but it cannot be declared as surplus because constructions are made on it. In our opinion, however, without even deciding that question, it is clear that the order passed by the State Government dated 17 th November 2007 and consequent order dated 19 th November 2007 are arbitrary and without authority of law and therefore, are liable to be set aside. What is further to be seen here is that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 with effect from 29 th November 2007 and as per the provisions of the Repeal Act, all proceedings 5 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 in relation to land, possession of which has not been taken by the Competent Authority would abate. As the surplus land continues to be in possession of the petitioners on the date on which the Principal Act was repealed, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) was a party, in its judgment in the case of Voltas Ltd. And anr. v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors., reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the petition will have to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )