1 WP 4312/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4312 OF 2010 Laxman Hari Dhamdhere .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.M. Savagave & Mr. J.M. Puranik for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Mr. Gokhale, A.G.P. waives service for the respondents. 4. Respondent no.2 - Deputy Collector & Competent Authority for the Ulhas Urban Agglomeration has filed affidavit in reply. Hence, the petition is taken for final hearing forthwith. 5. The petitioner’s brother – Late Rama Hari Dhamdhere had filed returns under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (“the Act” for short) and after an enquiry, 2 WP 4312/10 the Competent Authority passed an order on 30th July 1984 under section 8(4) of the Act declaring an area admeasuring 22,485.78 sq.ms. as surplus out of survey nos. 99/1, 85/4, 74/8, 98/1, 73/2, 82/1 and 71/5 of village Shirgaon, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The Deputy Collector issued a notification under section 10(1) of the Act in December 1984 and thereafter the notification under section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 21st August 1997 and was gazetted on 19th February 1998. Respondent no.2 issued notice under section 10(5) of the Act on 9th May 2005 and directed the land holder to hand over the possession of the surplus land to the State Government. However, the actual possession was not handed over nor was it, by following the due process, taken over by the respondents. Hence, this petition by relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Voltas Limited & Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority & Ors., 2008 (5) B.C.R. 746, praying for a direction to declare that the provisions of the repealed Act are not applicable to the subject land admeasuring 22,485.78 sq. ms. 6. Mr. Balram Jadhav, Deputy Collector and Competent Authoritty of Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, District Thane has filed affidavit in reply and has admitted that though 3 WP 4312/10 mutation entry in accordance with the notice under section 10(5) of the Act was made in favour of respondent no.3, in respect of the subject land possession of the said land remained with the landlord, i.e. the petitioner, and the actual possession of the said land was not taken over by the respondent – State Government. The affiant therefore prays for appropriate orders to be passed by this Court in keeping with the provisions of the Repeal Act. 7. In the facts of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Limited & Ors. (supra) is squarely applicable and, therefore, we have to hold that the proceedings for determination of the surplus land and the orders passed hereafter right upto the stage of notice under section 10(5) of the Act have lapsed and the vesting of the surplus land stands abrogated or cancelled. 8. Hence, this petition must succeed and the same is hereby allowed by making the Rule absolute in terms of prayer (b). No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)