-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.339 OF 2008 NO.339 OF 2008 NO.339 OF 2008 Smt Tarabai Bhaskar Bhoir ...Petitioner v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urgan Agglomeration, Thane and anr. ...Respondents Mr S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr V.P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 2ND JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner stated that he is restricting his petition to challenge action taken under section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 by the authority in relation to the lands in question. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had applied for exemption of the lands from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act 1976. By letter dated 25th August 1997, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.1 that the Government had agreed in principle to exempt the lands of the petitioner from the provisions of the said Act. However, by order dated 28th March 2005, the letter dated 25th August 1997 was set aside. The petitioner had not filed any return. Instead of taking up proceedings against the petitioner for not filing return and then making an order in accordance with law for declaration of the lands as surplus, the Competent Authority took steps under section 10 of the said Act. It is this action taken under section 10 of the said Act which is challenged in the petition. -3- 3. It may be pointed out that the petitioner in the petition also had challenged the order of the State Government whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Competent Authority cancelling the letter dated 25th August 1997, but the petitioner does not press that challenge in the petition. The petition is therefore restricted to challenge the action taken under section 10 of the said Act. Perusal of section 10 of the said Act shows that the proceedings under section 10 can be taken only after the land has been declared as surplus from the holdings of an individual. In the present case, admittedly, no land from the holdings of the petitioner has been yet declared as surplus. Obviously therefore, the proceedings under section 10 could not have been started against the petitioner. Perusal of section 10 shows that notification under section 10 can be issued only after final statement under section 9 is issued. The final statement under section 9 comes after objection to the provisional declaration of surplus land is disposed off. Therefore, basically for initiating proceedings under section 10, there has to be a declaration of surplus land in relation to the holdings of a holder. In the present case, admittedly, there is no such declaration and therefore, the authorities were not justified in initiating proceedings under section 10 in -4- relation to the petitioner’s land. In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court as true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)