1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4616 of 2008 Bharamnath Dada Khot since deceased Malti Bhalchandra @ Balaso Patil & ors. ... Petitioner versus Subhash Vishnupanath Kanzar ... Respondent ... Mr. P.S.Dani for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Borkar for the respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 9th July 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 23 April 2008 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kolhapur directing the petitioners (who are the legal representatives of the original judgment debtors) to execute a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the respondent within two weeks. 2. In a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent, a decree for specific performance was passed against the original judgment debtor. The decree was modified by District Court by its judgment and order dated 18 January 2005. The appellate court 2 directed execution of sale deed by the judgment debtor subject to the condition that the respondent should obtain permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act 1976 ( for short “the ULC” Act) Respondents thereafter applied for the permission which was refused. The respondents challenged the order of refusal before this court by filing a writ petition no.3175 of 2007. The writ petition came up for hearing on admission before this court on 13 February 2007. By that time, the ULC Act was repealed by the Repealing Act of 1999 which came into force in State of Maharashtra on 29 November 2007. In view of the repeal of the ULC Act, according to the said respondent, there was no requirement for obtaining permission under the ULC Act prior to the execution of a sale deed. Therefore, on request of the respondents herein, they were allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy. Respondents thereafter moved the executing court for a direction to execute the sale deed without insisting upon the permission from the ULC Act. By the order dated 23 April 2008, the executing court granted the request. That order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. In Voltas Ltd & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority & ors, 2008(5) Bom.C.R, this Court has considered the effect of repeal of the ULC Act as also the effect of section 3 of the repealing Act which saves certain things done under the repealed Act. This Court has held that no action taken by the State Government after the repeal of the ULC Act. In my view, by reason of legislative amendment by which the ULC Act have been repealed it is no longer necessary to obtain prior permission under the ULC Act for execution of the sale deed. The executing court, therefore, committed no error in directing 3 the execution of the sale deed without obtaining the permission under the ULC Act. 4. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. 5. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, operation of this order is stayed for a period of eight weeks. The sale deed shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)