1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1721 OF 2010 Ramchandra Bahirji Ingale, Since deceased through LR’s. 1) Sitabai Ramchandra Ingale & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Rahul P.Walvekar for Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 and 2. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 22, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Sonawane, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 & 2. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. In this Petition, the points for consideration are : 2 (1) Whether the Appropriate Authority has taken over possession of the subject surplus vacant lands before the date of repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 1999. (2) If the answer to the above question is no, whether it is open to the Appropriate Authority to proceed against the disputed land inspite of repeal of the said enactment in 1999. 5. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the Petitioner asserts that although the Competent Authority has declared that the Petitioner holds land admeasuring 5500 sq.mtrs. out of 7500 sq.mtrs. bearing Survey No. 281 as surplus vacant land, however, the actual and physical possession thereof has not been taken over by the Competent Authority so far. The fact so stated has not been disputed by the Respondents. As a matter of fact, in the reply affidavit filed in the present Petition sworn by Mr.Vivek Kaluram Agawane, Deputy Collector and the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Kolhapur dated 21st April 2010 in Paragraph 5, it is clearly conceded that the Petitioner is in actual and physical possession of 3 the said surplus land bearing Survey No.281. However, the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents is that the Petitioner was ordered to submit housing scheme under Section 20 of the Act as back as on 24th July 2006 and also thereafter. But the Petitioner failed to do so. The fact remains that the Petitioner has not submitted Scheme under Section 20 of the Act and at the same time, the Petitioner continued to remain in possession of the surplus vacant land on the date of repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and even thereafter till date. 6. We had occasion to consider similar argument in Writ Petition No. 723 of 2008 (Mr.Narayan s/o.Hiralal Patel & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) decided on 20th April 2010 and the same has been negatived by us. Following the same reasoning and the exposition of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority, Thane & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) All. MR 537, which view has been upheld by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation in allowing this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B). No order as to costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)