1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7275 of 2009 Smt.Gangubai Sudam Bhoir and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.Siddharth Ronghe, for the petitioners. Smt.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for the State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 15th June, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The petitioners claim to be owners of various lands at Village Chikanghar, Taluka Kalyan and which include land bearing Survey No.117 Hissa No.7+1B+4B part. The petitioners claim through one Nagesh Balu Bhoir, who is their ancestor. The said Nagesh Balu Bhoir, on the Urban Land (C & R) Act, coming into force, filed a Return under Section 8(1) of the Act, before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar. The brother of Nagesh Balu Bhoir, one Sudam Balu 2 Bhoir, had also filed a Return, which was numbered as case No.ULC/ULN6(i)/SR/112. The filing of the returns resulted in a order under Section 8(4) of the said Act. The said 8/4 order as originally passed, came to be revised by an order dated 12-04-1982 and by the said order, an area admeasuring 7,336.94 sq. mtrs., from lands bearing Survey No.117, Hissa No.7+1B+4B part of Village Chikanghar, Tal. Kalyan, was declared as surplus land. The said land declared surplus was out of the total holding admeasuring 16,237.84 sq.mtrs. of the said Bhoir Family. 4. It appears that thereafter, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, came to be issued on 24-06-1982, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) dated 03-01-1985. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the act, came to be issued on 09-05-2005, as per the affidavit-in-reply of the respondents. It appears that there is some mistake in the said date, as according to the petitioner, the actual date is 20-02-2006. It appears that the petitioners had filed an application for availing of the scheme under Section 20 of the said Act on 04-05-2005. Pursuant to the said application, petitioners were called upon to submit plans within a period of three days, failing which the application was to stand rejected. Since the petitioners did not submit plans as demanded, no action was taken on the said application and the same therefore, stood rejected. The fact of the matter is that no scheme was ultimately 3 sanctioned in respect of the area declared as surplus. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to be benefit of the repeal of the U.L. (C & R) Act, which came into force in the State of Maharashtra from 29-11-2007. 6. On behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, an additional affidavit-in-reply has been filed, by Mr.Kamalaesh Sakharam Sonale, In-Charge Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane. In the said affidavit, a categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land was not taken by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. Considering the said factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another V/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). Rule is accordingly made absolute, with parties to bear their own costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )