1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.352 OF 2008 Sairang Developers Promoters Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioners. Versus The Addl.Collector and Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Pune and ors. : Respondents. Shri S G Karandikar for the Petitioner. Smt. P S Cardoza, AGP for the Respondents/State CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 30th June 2010. P.C. 1 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 on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said proceedings. In the instant case the order under Section 8(4) was passed on 28/06/2005, the first hearing pursuant to the notice of sue moto revision was fixed on 13/08/2007 and, the revisional order was passed on 23/11/2007. 2 The revisional order dated 23/11/2007 is challenged on the ground that the Revisional Authority could not have, in its revisional jurisdiction, issued the directions that it has issued in the matter of levying penalty for regularising the construction carried out on the lands declared as surplus vacant lands. 2 3 In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on the ground of lack of power to levy the penalty is concerned, the said issue is no more res-integra and is concluded by a judgment dated 6th May 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court, (to which one of us P B Majmudar, J was a party) in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. By the said judgment, the revisional order in the said case was quashed on the ground that the revisional authority could not have issued directions of levying penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner for regularising the construction on the surplus vacant land. 4 Since the challenge raised in the present Petition in respect of levying the penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner is covered by the Judgment (supra), this Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. [R M SAVANT,J] [P B MAJMUDAR,J]