1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 639 /2011 (Nagorao Ramchandra Charhate and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 26th April, 2011. Heard Mr. P.V. Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice under section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was issued by the Additional Collector & Competent Authority on 7.11.2007 in respect of Survey No. 7(1), 7(2), area 22430.19 sq. mt, whereby possession of the land in question was directed to be delivered to the State Government through the Tahsildar, Nagpur. It is submitted that after the said notice was issued by the Competent Authority, no steps were taken either by the Competent Authority or by the State to take possession of the land in question and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the said land till this date. It is submitted that the repeal Act came into force with effect from 2 29.11.2007 and since possession of the land in question continued to be with the petitioners, the issue stands completely covered /concluded by the decision of this Court in Voltas & another vs. Additional Collector & others; reported in 2008(5) All MR 537 and, therefore, the petitioners are legally entitled to retain the same in future. Mr.Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader has not disputed the factual and legal aspects of the matter, including the fact that possession of the land in question is with the petitioners till date. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, the possession of the land in question being with the petitioners till date, the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Voltas's case (supra) and, therefore, the proceedings initiated under section 10(5) stands abated. The petitioners are entitled to retain the land in question in future. Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare