IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4363 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4363 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4363 OF 2008 Parvati Vasant Patil & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus The Government of Maharashtara & Ors..Respondents Shri Anil Kumar Patil, for the Petitioners. Shri V.P.Malvankar, A.G.P. for Respondent State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : DATED : DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008 25TH AUGUST, 2008 25TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Learned Counsel for petitioners contends that vide order dated 16th March, 2005 Respondent has passed an order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Thane under Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULC Act) in case No.ULC/TA/Mira/SR-34, primarily on the ground that the ULC Act itself has been repealed and no possession of the property in question was taken keeping in view the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in case of Maredia Associates vs. State Maredia Associates vs. State Maredia Associates vs. State (W.P.2572 of 2007 (O.S.) and in case of Voltas Ltd. vs. (W.P.2572 of 2007 (O.S.) and in case of Voltas Ltd. vs. (W.P.2572 of 2007 (O.S.) and in case of Voltas Ltd. vs. Additional Collector, W.P.No.8356 of 2006 (A.S.) Additional Collector, W.P.No.8356 of 2006 (A.S.) Additional Collector, W.P.No.8356 of 2006 (A.S.) so also the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pt. Madan Swaroop Pt. Madan Swaroop Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Trust vs. State of U.P. reported in JT Shrotiya Public Trust vs. State of U.P. reported in JT Shrotiya Public Trust vs. State of U.P. reported in JT 2000 (3) S.C. 391. 2000 (3) S.C. 391. 2000 (3) S.C. 391. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents fairly states that the possession of the land has not been taken and the judgment of this Court would squarely apply to the present case. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on this issue any further. We have considered the matter and are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgments as well as the judgment of the Apex Court. Thus, we quash the order dated 16th March, 2005. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, the Petitioners would be entitled to such reliefs as permissible under the law. Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J.