1 wp8610.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8610 OF 2010 Dnyanoba Sahadu Kapse & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM :­ D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :­ 17 OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :­ Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 In our opinion, in view of what is stated in paragraph Nos. 1 to 3 of Affidavit of Subhash Ramchandra Dharmadhikari, filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Petition will have to be allowed. 3 Paragraph Nos. 1 to 3 of the Affidavit read as under:­ “1. I state that Shri Dnyanoba Sahadu Kapse & Ors. had filed return u/s 6(1) of the ULC Act. By order dated 20/03/2007, Respondent No.2 passed an order u/s 8(4) of the ULC Act, thereby declaring surplus area at S. No.18/6+7 admeasuring 692.75 sq. mt. & 5/13/A (Part), area admeasuring 400.00 sq. mt. Total admeasuring 1092.75 sq. mt. at Village Rahatani, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune and corrigendum issued on 05/04/2007. 2 wp8610.10.sxw ssm 2. I say that thereafter notification u/s 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 20/3/2007 of the ULC Act and notification u/s 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 24/07/2007 and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 9/8/2007. However, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act for taking possession of the surplus land was not issued. 3. I say that though the notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) was issued, the notice under Section 10(5) was not issued and therefore the Petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the surplus land at S. No. 186/6+7 area 692.75 sq. mt. & 5/13/A (Part), area 400.00 sq. mt. Thus total 1092.75 sq. mt. at Village Rahatani, Tal Haveli, Dist. Pune. 4 It is, thus clear that before 29 November 2007 when the Urban Ceiling Act was repealed in the State of Maharashtra, possession of the subject land was not taken by the State Government. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors, reported in 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746, all proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act in relation to the land which is the subject matter of this Petition have lapsed. It is accordingly so declared. 5 Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)