-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4378 of 2009 Jaysing Shripatrao Pawar, Age : Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at 309, A-Ward, Kolhapur. ..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Competent Authority and Dy. Collector, Kolhapur Urban Agglomeration, Kolhapur. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ..Respondents. Mr. Y. S. Sakhare i/b M/s. YKS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, AGP for the Respondent – State Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : August 3, 2009. JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase, J.) : 1. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court in view of the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 [For short, “the said Act”.]. It is his contention that even though the land has been declared -: 2 :- surplus, the possession of the said land was not taken by the Respondent either under section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the said Act and as on today the possession is with the Petitioner. 3. The Respondent have filed an affidavit in the petition and they have admitted that the land declared as surplus is in possession of the Petitioner, though the notice under section 10(5) of the said Act was issued. Notice under Section 10(5) of the said Act contemplates surrender by the Petitioner and if the Petitioner has not surrendered the land, it was for the Respondents to issue notice under section 10(6) of the said Act and take forcible possession. However, the admitted position is that the Petitioner has not surrendered the land in view of notice under section 10(5) of the said Act and further steps were not taken by the Respondent to take the possession of the land. So the fact established is that on the date of repeal of the said Act, the possession of the land is with the Petitioner. In the matter of Voltas Limited v/s. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane, it is decided by this Court that if the possession of the surplus land is with the Petitioner on the date of the repeal of the said Act, further proceedings under the said Act stands abated and the Respondents cannot take possession of the said land under the said -: 3 :- Act. 4. We, therefore, find that the ceiling proceedings in respect of the surplus land of the Petitioner have abated in view of the repeal of the said Act and the Respondent is not entitled to take possession of the land in question. 5. Therefore, we declare that the ceiling proceedings in respect of the land in question have abetted in view of the repeal of the said Act. We direct that the Respondents shall not take possession of the land in question. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)