-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.61 OF 2008 PETITION NO.61 OF 2008 PETITION NO.61 OF 2008 Smt Meena Anil Patil and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr Pratap V. Patil for Petitioners. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.Y. GANOO JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the State Government dated 11th November 2007 (it was thereafter clarified that the order is actually dated 15th November 2007) in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The State Government, by that order, has set aside the order dated 29th January 1999 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune under the said Act holding that the petitioners do not hold any vacant land within the meaning of that Act. It appears from the record that a notice was served on the petitioners dated 8th November 2007 asking them to appear before the State Government on 12th November 2007 because the State Government proposed to revise the order dated 29th January 1999. In the notice, it was stated that previously the State Government had proposed to hear the petitioners on 7th November 2007 and a notice about that hearing was given to them but they did not appear. According to the allegations in the petition, the notice dated 8th November 2007 was received by the petitioners on 11th November 2007 in Pune. On 12th November 2007 they appeared before the Government and sought time to file reply. The time was -3- not given to them and the order was passed on 15th November 2007 setting aside the order of the Competent Authority, Pune. The petitioners challenge the order on several grounds. The first ground of challenge is that though it is alleged that notice of hearing scheduled to be held on 7th November 2007 is given to the petitioners, even the date of that notice is not mentioned. It is alleged that the only reason that appears to have been given for revising the order is that the order of the Competent Authority has given its decision on the basis of judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum’s case and therefore it is defective. It is alleged that the State Government could not have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under section 34 of the said Act in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Automotive Research Association of India and anr. v/s State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2003(1) Bom.C.R. 278 after expiry of the period of three years from the date of order of the Competent Authority. It is also alleged that the time given by the State Government to file reply was insufficient though the request was made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of time to file reply, time was not given. The State Government has filed affidavit in reply. The State Government denies that previously notice was not given to the petitioners for hearing which was scheduled on 7th November 2007, but the -4- Government does not mention in the affidavit any date on which the notice of scheduled hearing viz. 7th November 2007 was issued or was received by the petitioners. The allegation in the petition, specifically paragraph 4(e), that the petitioners appeared before the Government on 12th November 2007 and sought time and they received the notice on 11th November 2007 is not denied. The petitioners have alleged that virtually no hearing was given to them. 2. It does appear that the petitioners were not given adequate time to file their reply. The notice that was given to the petitioners does not clearly indicate the grounds on which the State Government proposed to revise the order. But, in our opinion, the short ground on which the order is liable to be set aside is that the State Government has exercised its revisional jurisdiction in contravention of law laid down by this Court by its judgment in Automotive Research Association of India’s case. The State Government was a party to that decision. IN that judgment, it is clearly held that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised after expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the order of the Competent Authority is made. That judgment was binding on the State Government and therefore, least that was expected from the State Government while making -5- order under section 34 of the said Act, after expiry of the period of three years, was to refer to that judgment and indicate why it proposes to make the order in revisional jurisdiction after period of three years as laid down by this Court. In our opinion, even this elementary requirement is not followed by the State Government and therefore, the order of the State Government is liable to be set aside. In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). No order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.Y. GANOO J.)