1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2764 OF 2001 Bafna Charitable Trust ] having their office at Block No.3,] 2nd floor, Botawala Building, 7/10,] Horniman Circle, Fort, ] Mumbai-400032 ] through Shri Suresh Bafna ] Managing Trustee [.... Petitioner versus 1. State of Maharashtra ] ] 2. The Hon ble Minister ] Urban Development & Urban ] Land Ceiling, Government of ] Maharashtra, Mantralaya ] Mumbai  400032. ].... Respondents. Shri V B Naik with Chandana S Radia for the Petitioner Smt. Geeta Shastri, AGP, for the State/Respondents. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18th June 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER P B MAJMUDAR, J] 1. The Petitioner is a charitable trust. By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th September 2001 passed by th Government of Maharashtra under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. By the aforesaid order, the State Government revoked the exemption given to the Petitioner under Section 19 of the said Act and accordingly, the exemption order was revised by the State Government under Section 34 of the Act. 2. During the course of the hearing, it is pointed out to us that on the basis of the impugned order, no further proceedings have been taken by the Government against the Petitioner. In the meantime the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, have been adopted by the State Government on 29th November 2007 in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act, the proceedings can be said to have been abated. It is not in dispute that the possession of the land in question is with the Petitioner Trust. It is also not in dispute that the 3 State Government has not initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Now since the proceedings can be said to be abated in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which has been adopted by the State Government on 29th November 2007, it is now not necessary to examine the legality of the order impugned in this Petition as no further proceedings under the said Act can be taken in view of the Repealing Act Even if it is assumed that the exemption given is cancelled, then also further proceedings cannot be taken by the State Government in view of the Repealing Act. 3. The learned Asstt. Government Pleader submitted that she had sought for instructions from the Department in this behalf and she has been informed by the Dy. Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department vide letter dated 17th June 2009 that return filed by the Petitioner under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 has not been decided by the Competent Authority, Mumbai and the action under Section 10 of the said Act for taking over possession 4 of the land has not been taken. The said letter is produced on record and marked X for identification. The relevant contents of the said letter read thus :- I have been instructed by the Government to inform you that the returns filed by the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 has not been decided by the Competent Authority, Mumbai, therefore, action under Section 10 of the said Act for taking over possession of the land has not been taken. I further inform you that no scheme under Section 20 of the ULC Act, 1976 has been sanctioned upon the land of the Petitioner-Trust. I may inform you that the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 have been adopted by the State Government on 29th November 2007 and as per Section 4 of the said Act, Government submit to the orders of this Hon ble Court in the interest of justice. 4. In view of the provisions of the Urban Land 5 (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, this Petition is disposed of by holding that further proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation), Act, 1976 are abated and the State Government now cannot take any proceedings on the basis of the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations, the Petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]