-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.1977 OF 2008 NO.1977 OF 2008 NO.1977 OF 2008 Manohar Nana Mhatre ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Ms Gauri Jadhav for Petitioner. Mr A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. The land from the holding of the petitioner was declared as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. Thereafter, Notification dated 27th April 2006 was issued under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and Notice under subsection (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 6th May 2006 directing the petitioner to deliver possession of the land. According to the averments in the petition, possession of the land declared as surplus, however, was not taken by the Government till 29th November 2007 when the Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999. This position is not disputed by the Government by filing an affidavit. Thus, from the record it appears to be an admitted position that possession of the land declared as surplus was with the petitioner on 29th November 2007. In this view of the matter therefore, this petition will be covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.8356 of 2006 (Voltas Ltd. and anr. v/s Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban -3- Agglomeration, Thane and ors.) decided on 25th July 2008 to which one of us (D.K. Deshmukh J.) is a party. 2. However, from the record we find that the petitioner has produced copy of 7/12 extract of the land which shows that the name of Government of Maharashtra is entered as the person possession in land. It is disputed question of fact. Therefore, though the law is settled that if the possession of the land is not with the Government on 29th November 2007, the land will revert back to the land owner, the land owner will have to establish as a matter of fact that on or before 29th November 2007, possession of the land declared as surplus was not taken by the Government in accordance with law. In our opinion, therefore, no order can be made in this petition. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. The petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file civil suit and seek appropriate relief. However, as the interim order is in operation, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in relation to the land which is subject matter of this petition for a period of eight weeks from today. Petition is disposed off with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of -4- the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)