:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.178 OF 2008 PETITION NO.178 OF 2008 PETITION NO.178 OF 2008 Nitin K. Gandhi & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondent. Mr.A.A. Joshi i/b Mr. Nivit Srivastava for the petitioner Mr. V.P Malvankar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. V.M. Bharadwaj i/b Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent No.5 and 6 CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2008 : 1ST APRIL, 2008 : 1ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking stay of orders dated 19th May, 2007 and 4th October, 2007 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively which according to the petitioner has affected the development of the property. It is the case of the petitioner that he has entered into Deed of Assignments with Nicholas Alfaso for which matter is pending and for that it is the case of the petitioner that he will carry out the development subject to the decision in case of tenant whose :2: litigation is still going on. 3. The main issue in the matter was restriction imposed by the State under the impugned orders. The affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Sanjay Shantaram Banait, Town Planner, it has been stated that in view of the fact that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, the provisions of Section 22 of the Principal Act is not saved under the repealing and saving clause in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which has been adopted by the State. All the proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under Section 22 of the Principal Act, pending immediately before the commencement of the repeal Act, before any Court, tribunal or other authority shall abate. 4. We accept this statement made in the affidavit as consequences of which the impugned orders do not survive. Therefore, we dispose of this petition on the basis of the stand taken by the State in the matter. (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, J.) J.) J.) :3: ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)