1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9243 OF 2007 Shri.Bharat Bhiwa Mirkute. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.The Deputy Collector & Competent authority (ULC) & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for Petitioner. Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the State Government in the revision. The petitioner in the revision had challenged the order passed by the competent 2 authority dated 10.6.2005 cancelling the exemption scheme under Section 20(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Reason for cancellation was that the time that was given, as a condition for grant of exemption, for completion of construction has not been observed. No application even for extension of time was made. There was no dispute that there was a time limit fixed for completion of the construction and for handing over of flats to the State. It is not in dispute that the construction has not been completed and the flats were not handed over in time. It is also not in dispute that the time limit fixed for completion of the project is over, and the petitioner did not, at any point of time, make any application seeking extension of time. In this view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, we cannot interfere with the order passed by the competent authority as also the order passed by the State Government in the revision. 2. A grievance is made against the part of the order of the State Government where the State Government states that the State Government confirmed 3 the process of acquisition of the land. In our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order in that regard because admittedly the land has been declared surplus in the year 1984 itself and therefore, the observations are justified. 3. There is a prayer made in the petition that the State Government should be directed not to take possession of the land in view of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. It is a common ground that so far the State Government has not sought possession of the land from the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, at this juncture the prayer is premature and the petition in that regard is premature. Therefore, the petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---