Ast 1 wp3113.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3113 OF 2010 Smt. Shobha Premsing Chavan & Anr. ....Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar for petitioners. Mrs. J.S.Pawar, Addl. G.P.for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 6, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mrs.Pawar, Addl. 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 : (1) Whether the Appropriate Authority has taken over Ast 2 wp3113.10.sxw 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 affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents clearly admits that possession of disputed lands continues with the Petitioners/Declarants. Learned Addl.G.P. has handed in affidavit of Mr.Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan dated 28th April, 2010 which, in clear terms in para-2, accepts that the possession of the surplus land is not obtained by the Government and the same is still with the holder. Thus, the answer to the first question is obviously in favour of the Petitioners. 6. On this admitted position, we would proceed to examine the second question. That question, however, has now been authoritatively Ast 3 wp3113.10.sxw answered in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) BCR 746, which view has been upheld by the Apex Court. The inevitable order that would follow in such a situation is to hold that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 have lapsed and abated qua the lands held and possessed by the Petitioners/Declarants. In that view of the matter, the Petition ought to succeed. 7. Accordingly, Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) with no order as to costs. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)