1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.888 OF 2008 Ezzi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. : Petitioners. Versus The Addl.Collector and Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane and ors. : Respondents. Shri A A Kumbhakoni i/by Ms.Gauri Godse for the Petitioners. Smt. P S Cardoza, AGP for the Respondents/State CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 30th June 2010. P.C. 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by the consent of the parties. 2 This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 31/10/2009passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (brevities sake referred to as “the said Act”) on the ground that the siad order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant case the order under Section 8(4) was passed on 8/3/2006, the first hearing pursuant to the notice of suo moto revision was fixed on 24/09/2007 and, the revisional order was passed on 31/10/2007. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were neither given any hearing on 24th September, 2007 nor were they informed about the issues for the proposed revision. 2 3 In fact in the earlier Writ Petition No.8599 of 2006 which was filed against the refusal of the Thane Municipal Corporation to issue Commencement Certificate, statement was made on behalf of the said corporation that Commencement Certificate would be issued upon which the said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn. However thereafter to the surprise of the Petitioners the impugned letter came to be issued demanding an amount of Rs.4,06,68,500/- towards market value of the said land admeasuring 4999 sq.mtrs. The said letter refers to the revisional order dated 31st October 2007 which order according to the Petitioners is not served upon them. Though we find merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the revisional order dated 31st October 2007 had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, we need not further dilate on this ground as the impugned order cannot be sustained on another ground namely that the revisional authority could not have issued the directions it has issued in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the said Act, levying penalty for regularising the construction on the land purported to be surplus. 4 In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on the said ground of lack of power to levy the penalty is concerned, the said issue is no more res-integra and is concluded by a judgment dated 6th May 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court, (to which one of us P B Majmudar, J was a party) in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. By the said judgment, the revisional order in the said case was quashed on the ground that the revisional authority could not have issued directions of levying penalty at the 3 rate mentioned in the ready reckoner for regularising the construction on the surplus vacant land. Another aspect to be considered is that on account of the repeal of the said Act, even if we were to remand the matter back to the authorities for a de-novo consideration, the said exercise would be futile as on repeal of the said Act the proceedings, if any, stand abated. 5 Be that as it may, since the challenge raised in the present Petition in respect of levying the penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner is covered by the Judgment (supra), this Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. [R M SAVANT,J] [P B MAJMUDAR,J]