1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9383 OF 2009 1.Tukaram Shantaram Patil & ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, for Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent-State. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 8TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Pursuant to the Return filed by the petitioners under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, by order dated 31.8.1982 land admeasuring 21090.74 square meters was declared surplus. Thereafter, notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act was published on 7.9.1982. Then Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published on 5.12.1984. Notice under 2 Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 20.2.2006. But according to the petitioners, possession of surplus land was not taken by the respondents. The fact that the actual and physical possession of the subject land is still with the petitioner, is admitted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Thus, it is clear that on 29.11.2007 when the Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, possession of surplus land was with the petitioner, is an established position. Hence, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case Voltas Ltd. Vs. The Addl.Collector & Competent Authority & Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746 , the petition is required to be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)