-1- W.P. No. 2975 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2975 OF 2008 Smt. Usharani D. Khatri and others ... Petitioners versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority and others ... Respondents Mr. K.K. Malpathak for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 09, 2010. P.C. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands in Thane District. On the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) coming into force Petitioners had filed returns under Section 6 (1) of the said Act. The said returns came to be adjudicated by the authorities and an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act came to be passed on 28th September, 2007 declaring certain lands of the Petitioners as surplus vacant lands. A notification under Section 10(1) was issued on 31st -2- W.P. No. 2975 of 2008 October, 2007 and thereafter no Notification under Section 10(3) of the said Act was issued. But admittedly the possession of the lands in question has not been taken by the concerned competent authority. 3 The Petitioners have approached this Court for the reliefs claimed in the above Petition relying upon the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act by the State of Maharashtra which repeal has come into force on 29th November 2007. 4 On behalf of the State/Respondents an affidavit in reply has been filed by one Bhausaheb Joti Patil, Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, it has been averred as un der: “With reference to paragraph 8 (g) of the Writ Petition, I deny that in view of the adoption of Repealing Act, these Respondents are not in a position to exercise any power under the provisions of the said Act as alleged by the petitioner. I state that bare perusal of the Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (No. 15 of 1999), it shows that the Section 10 (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation is saved. I further respectfully submit that sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (No. 15 of 1999), states that any land is deemed to have vested in the State government under Section (3) of the Section 10 of the Principal Act, but possession of which has not been taken over by the State -3- W.P. No. 2975 of 2008 Government. In view of this saving of the said Repeal Act, theree is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner.” In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Voltas Ltd and ors v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, reported in 2008(5) BCR 746 and in view of the fact that the possession of the land in question has not been taken prior to 29th November 2007, the proceedings, if any, under the said Act have therefore abated in view of the repeal of the said Act. 5 The above Petition, therefore, would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Petition. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.