Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.459 OF 2009 M/s Kunal Housing Partnership Firm ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Girish Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P.,for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The facts which are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner holds vacant land but initially under the development plan the land was in non agricultural zone. Therefore, no return was filed. However, subsequently, zoning of the land changed from agricultural to Industrial. Therefore, return was filed and by an order dated 8.6.1985 made under Section 8 (4) the Competent Authority declared that 3000 square meters of land from the holding of the petitioner is surplus. By an order dated 18.6.1985 a declaration under Section 10 (1) was made declaring 3000 square meters of land as surplus. That declaration is dated 18.6.1985. The petitioner, then, submitted a scheme for Exemption of the surplus land under the provisions of Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act ). By an order dated 18.1.1993 that scheme was sanctioned and 3000 sq.meters land, declared as surplus, was exempted from the provisions of the U.L.C. Act. It appears that, however, according to the petitioner the zoning of the land again changed and now the land was included in Residential Zone. Therefore, the petitioner again filed a return under the provisions of the U.L.C., Act. An order was passed pursuant to that return by the Competent Authority dated 28.12.2005 and it was found that the petitioner does not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit fixed by the U.L.C.Act. According to the petitioner, he has approached this Court, because ignoring order dated 28.12.2005 holding that the petitioner does not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, the State Government is proceeding to deal with the land as if the land is covered by the earlier order made under Section 8 (4) of the U.L.C., Act. The case of the petitioner is that in any case as the Principal Act itself is repealed with effect from 29.11.2007 and as admittedly possession of the surplus land has not been taken before that date, all the proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act abate. 3. We have heard the learned A.G.P., appearing for the State. He does not dispute that possession of the land has not been taken before 29.11.2007. But, according to him, Exemption has been granted under Section 20 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act the provisions of the U.L.C.Act, will continue to operate. In our view, however, the submission of the learned A.G.P., is not well founded because of the existence of the subsequent order, namely, order dated 28.12.2005. It declares that no land from the holding of the petitioner is surplus. The State Government could not have proceeded on the basis of the first order declaring 3,000 sq.meters as surplus. It is nobody s case that order dated 28.12.2005 has been withdrawn or cancelled by the State Government or by any competent court. It also appears that in view of the Repeal Act it may not be possible for the State Government to withdraw or cancel the order dated 28.12.2005. In our opinion, thus, it is clear that because of the order dated 28.12.2005 there is no surplus land from the holding of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question by the State Government taking any steps in the matter, specially, because of the provisions of the Repeal Act. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)