1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8686 OF 2007 ... 1.Raghunath Baburao Tupe and ors. ..Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 17th December,2009 P.C.: 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The facts which are relevant for 2 deciding this petition are that the Petitioners had filed a return under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. An order was made under Section 8 on 17-4-2003 by the Competent Authority that there is no surplus vacant land in the holding of the Petitioners. It appears that the proceedings under Section 34 to revise that order was taken up by the Government and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners in the month of September, 2007 and thereafter an order was made on 3rd November, 2007 setting aside the order dated 17-4-2003 sanctioning the scheme under Section 20 for exemption of the land from the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Further providing that if the land owner is not interested in implementation of the scheme sanctioned under Section 20, then the land owner should pay to the State Government the 3 price of the land as per the ready-recknor, and if that not done, then the Government should take possession of the land treating it as Government land. The Petitioners are aggrieved by that order and therefore have this petition. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel is that even assuming that the declaration made on 17-4-2003, that there is no surplus vacant land in the holding of the Petitioners, was wrong, and therefore the State Government was justified in setting aside the order dated 17-4-2003, then also the only course open to the State Government was to remand the proceedings back to the competent authority to determine the extent of the surplus vacant land in the holding of the Petitioners. Without there being any surplus land, there was no question of 4 sanctioning any scheme under Section 20 and there was no question of State Government directing recovering price of the land, because there is no provisions in the Act authorising the State Government to do so. The learned Counsel further submits that in any case, as there is no declaration of surplus land and as there is no question of land holder ever giving possession of the land to the Government, after the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed with effect from 21-11-2007 in the State of Maharashtra by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act all further proceedings will abate. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the possession of the substantial portion of the land was handed over by the Petitioners to the Corporation in the year 2003, and 5 therefore, proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act will not abate as a consequence of Repeal Act. 5. It is clear that there is only one declaration under Section 8 and that declaration is dated 17-4-2003 and by that declaration it is declared that the Petitioner does not hold any surplus land. The consequence of the State Government setting aside that declaration by its order dated 3-11-2007 would be that the return filed by the Petitioners under Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act will stand restored to the file of the competent authority. The question of exemption of the land from the provisions of the Ceiling Act will arise only after it is found that the Petitioners hold surplus vacant land. In the absence of any declaration that the 6 Petitioners hold surplus land, there is no question of any scheme for exemption being sanctioned. Even assuming that without there being any declaration of surplus land, the Government can sanction the scheme under Section 20, there is no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to recover price of the land for failure of the land holders to implement scheme under Section 20. There is also no power in the State Government to take possession of the land treating it as Government land on failure of the land holder to pay price of the land. The consequences under the Act commence only on declaration of land as surplus. In the present case, at no point of time any authority has declared that the Petitioners are in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area. In view of the provisions of the Repeal Act , and as there was no 7 declaration of surplus land, there was no question of land holder handing over the possession of any land to the Government, and therefore further proceedings in relation to the land of the Petitioners will abate after 29-11-2007. This view has been taken by the Division Bench of our Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. v/s. Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & ors, 2008(5), Bom.C.R. 746. 6. So far as the case of the Respondent that because the Petitioners handed over possession of substantial portion of the land to the Corporation in the year 2003, the proceedings will not abate is concerned, in our opinion, the submission has no substance. Because in the year 2003 there was no declaration made declaring any land as surplus and therefore there is no question of 8 handing over possession of the land to the State Government. The land appears to have been handed over by the Petitioners to the Corporation for widening of road and not because of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, petition will have to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. It is declared that all further proceedings in relation to the land of the Petitioners under the Urban Land Ceiling Act abate. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)