- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9428 OF 2007 ... Trambak S. Navale ...Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by - 2 - consent of parties. 2. Admittedly the land from the holding of the Petitioner was declared as surplus under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act. A notification under sub-section 3 of Section 10 of that Act was issued on 18-10-2007. Thereafter, an order under sub-section 5 of Section 10 was made on 15-11-2007 asking the Petitioner to deliver possession of the surplus land within a period of 30 days from the date of the notice i.e. 15-11-2007. According to the Petitioner he did not deliver possession of the land pursuant to the notice. According to the Petitioner in any case before expiry of the period of 30 days from 15-11-2007, on 29-11-2007 the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the Repeal Act and in view of the Repeal Act the further proceedings will not survive. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Voltas Ltd. v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Writ Petition No.8356 of 2006 dated 25th July, 2008, to which one of us is a party. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench and in view of the fact that it is apparent from the record that the possession of the land declared as surplus was not taken by the - 3 - Government before 29-11-2007, petition will have to be allowed. 3. In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c-i). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)