1 WP 4522 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4522 of 2008 Smt.Sulabai Shankar Katke ..... Petitioner V/s. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority U.L.C. Office, Pune and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.S.Oshwal a/w Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondents – State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 15th July, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the initiation of the revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for the brevities sake, hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said proceedings. In the instant case, the order under Section 8(4) was initially passed on 30-03-1995 in respect of the statement filed by the respondent No.6. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 06-08-2001, holding that the 2 WP 4522 of 2008 land holders are not in possession of any surplus vacant land. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Returns which is purported to be under Section 15 of the said Act. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority considered the said Returns and passed fresh order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, on 03-03-2007, declaring the area of 10 sq. mtrs as excess land and resultantly, the petitioner was allowed to retain 5,500 sq. mtrs., of land. It appears that the petitioner was granted exemption for 10 sq. mtrs., under Section 20 of the said Act, on 13-03-2007 and for the said area, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.35,000/-, which the petitioner deposited on the same day and therefore, in so far as the excess land is concerned, the matter ends there. 3. In so far as the said marginal surplus land is concerned, the petitioner applied for development permission to the Pune Municipal Corporation and was seeking to avail of the scheme under Section 80Ib I.T.Act. This was sometime in the year 2007. The petitioner thereafter, received a notice of suo-motu revision under Section 34 of the said Act, on 01-10-2007, informing the petitioner to remain present for hearing before the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation vide letter dated 04-10-2007, drawing attention of the revisional authority to the intervening facts. However, the revisional authority passed the impugned order on 24-11-2007. 3 WP 4522 of 2008 4. In so far as the challenge to the order on the ground of inordinate delay in taking up the revisional proceedings, as also whether the State Government has a power to unilaterally sanction a scheme, the issue is no more res integra and is covered by our Judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.6963 of 2005 dated 23-06-2010. 5. It is required to be noted that the subject matter of the instant petition is Survey No.119/1, situated at Village Warje, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, admeasuring about 4000 sq.mtrs. It appears that in respect of the said survey Number, there was a title dispute between the petitioner’s father (Maruti Shripat Charwad) and the respondent No.6, which was the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.1268 of 1994. The said suit was filed by the respondent No.6, which was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the respondent No.6 filed Civil Appeal No.94 of 1999, which was also dismissed, against which the respondent No.6 filed Second Appeal bearing No.930 of 2004, which was also dismissed by this Court on 05-05-2005. In view of the said proceedings having been decided in favour of the petitioner abovenamed and against the respondent No.6, the petitioner’s title over the said land in question has been confirmed. It is further required to be noted that during the pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.6 had filed a Return under Section 6(1), on the basis of which the order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, dated 30-03-1995 4 WP 4522 of 2008 came to be passed. However, thereafter, the petitioner has prosecuted the proceedings under the said Act. Though, the petitioner has prosecuted the said proceedings and in fact has paid an amount of Rs.35,000/- for the exempted area of 10 sq. mtrs., the order impugned in this petition was erroneously passed by referring to the respondent No.6, probably in view of the fact that the original 8(4) order dated 30-03-1995 and the corrigendum dated 06-08-2001 was passed on the basis of the 6(1) statement filed by Mr.Kamble. Though, it was necessary for the revisional authority to revise the 8(4) order passed on the basis of the Return filed by the present petitioner, the infirmity in the proceedings on the said count need not be gone into as the petition is required to be allowed on the two grounds as mentioned above. 6. In our view, the civil proceedings based on title having been decided against the respondent No.6, the petitioner would be entitled to maintain the present petition challenging the said order passed in revision against the respondent No.6. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is accordingly made absolute. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )