1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9266 OF 2007 1.Shri.Damodar Laxman Navare & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The Deputy Collector & competent Authority (ULC) Ulhasnagar & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for Petitioners. Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by 2 consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 20.11.2007 published in the official gazette dated 19.11.2007 issued under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & regulation) Act. Admittedly the land from the holding of the petitioners was declared surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & regulation) Act. There was a scheme sanctioned under Section 20 of the Act, that scheme was cancelled, that cancellation was challenged. According to the petitioners, the cancellation was set aside. But for the purpose of this petition, it is not necessary for us to go into that aspect of the matter. The petitioner in this petition restricted his challenge to the notification dated 20.11.2007 and the challenge is in extremely narrow compass. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that in the official gazette of Maharashtra dated 17.11.2007, a notification dated 26.9.2007 issued by the competent Authority under 3 sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act in relation to the land of the petitioners was published. That notification states that if the land holder has any objection or any person having interest in the land having objection to the proposal contained in the notification, then they should raise objection within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette, before the competent authority. This notification is dated 26.9.2007 which was published in the official gazette dated 17.11.2007. Therefore, as per this notification the petitioners had thirty days to raise objection to the proposal. However, within few days of the publication of the notification in the official gazette, another notification was issued which is dated 20.11.2007 which was issued under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Act which was published in the official gazette dated 19.11.2007. The learned Counsel submits that the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act obviously has been issued within the period of thirty days which were allowed for raising objections. The notification has 4 been issued denying the petitioners-land holders an opportunity to raise objections which was contemplated by the earlier notification dated 26.9.2007. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents. Except saying that this was done in the public interest, he has no argument to offer. Bare perusal of the notification dated 26.9.2007 published in the official gazette dt.17.11.2007 which was issued under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and the other notification dt. 20.11.2007 published in the official gazette dt. 19.11.2007 which was issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, shows that the subsequent notification dated 19.11.2007 is unsustainable. The notification dated 26.9.2007 was issued under sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act reads as under:- “10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit:- (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent 5 authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that- (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed.” Perusal of the above quoted provision makes it clear that the objections are to be called to the proposed acquisition of the land. Then comes sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act which reads as under:- “10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit:- (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders 6 as it deems fit.” Perusal of the above quoted provision shows that this provision incorporates requirement of natural justice which obliges the Competent authority to consider the objections that are raised pursuant to the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. Thereafter comes sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act which reads as under:- “10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit:- (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.” 7 It is now a settled law that when the requirements of natural justice get incorporated in the Statute, following of that requirements become mandatory. In the present case the requirement of the Competent authority considering the objections lodged pursuant to the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act is mandatory requirement. The notification dated 20.11.2007 has been issued clearly in breach of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act and therefore, on that sole ground it is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The notification dated 20.11.2007 published in the official gazette dated 19.11.2007 a copy of which is at “Exhibit K” to the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the Government has issued a corrigendum dated 29.3.2008 published in the official gazette dated 3.4.2008 modifying the notification 8 issued under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act. There is no question of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act being modified because it is only a proposal. So far as the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Act is concerned, we have already held that the notification is infirm and it was issued in breach of the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, and therefore, any attempt to modify that will not be valid. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---