-1- W.P. No. 4537 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4537 OF 2008 Madhav Trimbak Jadhav and others ... Petitioners versus Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, ULC and others ...Respondents. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for the petitioners. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 09, 2010. P.C. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands in Nashik District. On the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) coming into force Petitioners had filed returns under Section 6 (1) of the said Act. The said returns came to be adjudicated by the authorities and an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act came to be passed on 30th November, 1982 declaring certain lands of the Petitioners as surplus vacant lands, followed by a corrigendum dated 20th April, 1995. A -2- W.P. No. 4537 of 2008 notification under Section 10(3) was published in the gazette on 21st June, 2007. Thereafter on 3rd July, 2007, a notice under section 10(5) was issued calling upon the Petitioners to hand over the possession of the lands in question. But admittedly the possession of the lands in question has not been taken by the concerned competent authority. 3. The Petitioners have approached this Court for the reliefs claimed in the above Petition relying upon the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act by the State of Maharashtra which repeal has come into force on 29th November 2007. 4 On behalf of the State/Respondents an affidavit in reply has been filed by one Prakash Thube, Additional Collector and Competent Authority, dated 22nd April, 2010 stating that the possession of the excess land is not obtained by the Government and the said land is still with the holder. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Voltas Ltd and ors v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, reported in 2008(5) BCR 746 which judgment has been upheld by the Apex Court. In view of the fact that the possession of the land in question has not been taken prior to 29th November, 2007, the proceedings, if any, under the said Act have, therefore, abated in view of the repeal of the said Act. -3- W.P. No. 4537 of 2008 5. The above Petition, therefore, would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of the prayer clause (a) of the Petition. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.