2.i.wp.201.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.201 OF 2008 Shri Shirish Rupchand Dharmavat and 2 others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 2 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate a/w. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent - State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Pursuant to a return filed by the petitioners, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act,1976", for brevity) by an order dated 8th January, 1979 land admeasuring 35780.64 square 2.i.wp.201.08 2 meters was declared as surplus land from the holdings of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Competent Authority in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the ULC Act, 1976 made a further declaration that there is no surplus land in the holdings of the petitioners. That declaration, it appears, to have been made because there was no access to the land of the petitioners and, therefore, it could not be treated as a vacant land for the purpose of the ULC Act, 1976. The proceedings under Section 34 of the ULC Act were again taken out, this time by the State Government for revising the declaration dated 29th November, 2001. An order was made on 3rd November, 2007. By that order, the declaration dated 29th November, 2001 was set-aside. The Scheme under Section 20 of the ULC Act, 1976 was sanctioned. It was provided that for getting the said Scheme sanctioned the land holder should approach the Competent Authority within eight days. It was further stated that in case the land holder does not approach within 2.i.wp.201.08 3 the aforesaid period of eight days then the land holder should pay price of the land at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner. And thus on payment of this amount, the land holder will be entitled to use the land according to Development Plan. If the price is not paid, which was provided in the order, that land will be taken in possession of the Government as Government land. The petitioners have approached the Court challenging this order of the State Government dated 3rd November, 2007. This order is challenged on several grounds. But the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that leaving all other challenges aside, now that the ULC Act, 1976 has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Repeal Act" for brevity) w.e.f. 29th November, 2007 in the State of Maharashtra and as possession of the land declared as surplus was never taken from the land holder, in terms of the provisions of the Repeal Act, all further proceedings 2.i.wp.201.08 4 abated even assuming that the order passed by the State Government is valid order. 3. We have also heard the learned A.G.P. for the respondents - State. The respondents have filed affidavit dated 26th November, 2009. Para-2 of the said affidavit reads as under:- "2. I say that it appears from the record that after the impugned order dated 3-11-2007 passed by the then Hon'ble Minister for State, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, no notice u/s. 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act were issued. The actual possession of the surplus land is with the petitioner." 4. It is clear from the affidavit, as quoted above, that no notices under Sections 10(3) & 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976 were issued and possession of the surplus land is with the petitioners even today. The aforesaid affidavit is dated 26th November, 2009. As such, as on 26th November, 2009, possession of the surplus land was with the petitioners. In view of this admitted position, in our opinion, in view of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this 2.i.wp.201.08 5 Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the present Petition has to be allowed. Petition succeed and is allowed. It is declared that all proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 in relation to the land of the petitioners which was subject matter of the order dated 3rd November, 2007 have abated. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)