1 wp7524.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7524 OF 2011 The Papal Seminary Trust & Ors. ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. J. Reis, Sr. Advocate i/by Mr. Sean Wassoodew for the Petitioner. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.1. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 22 NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- Shri Kumbhakoni, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 submits that the Respondents are willing to give to the Petitioner TDR as promised for the land which is already given in possession of the Corporation, as also the land which the Petitioner has agreed to give in possession of the Respondents for road widening. He states that TDR admissible to the Petitioner for these lands can be released in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six months from today. He however, submits that it appears from the record that the land is part of the land which was exempted from the provisions of the 2 wp7524.11.sxw ssm Urban Ceiling Act by the State Government by making an order under Section 20 of the Urban Ceiling Act. Therefore, the Corporation needs clarification as to whether the land continued with the Petitioner as a result of repeal of the Urban Ceiling Act or otherwise. He also submits that in view of certain development that have taken place in relation to the order passed under the Urban Ceiling Act, specially in Pune Region, the Petitioner should be required to produce a certified copy or original of the exemption order that was made by the State Government. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Shri Reis states that the Petitioner will produce original and the duly notarized copy of the exemption order dated 29 September 1984 before the Pune Municipal Corporation within a period of two weeks from today. He further states that though an exemption order was made under Section 20 of the Urban Ceiling Act, the land continued in possession of the Trust and the scheme for exemption was never implemented. He submits that as the land was in possession of the Trust on 29 November, 2007 when the Urban Ceiling Act was repealed, now even the exemption order will not survive. It is the case of the Petitioner that possession of the land was given to the Pune Municipal 3 wp7524.11.sxw ssm Corporation on which the road has been constructed in December 2007. It means that the land was in possession of the Trust in December 2007. The conduct of the Pune Municipal Corporation of demanding possession of the land from the Petitioner also shows that even according to the Corporation the possession of the land was of the Trust. This shows that the State Government never acquired possession of the land under the Urban Ceiling Act and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act which repeals the Urban Ceiling Act in the State of Maharashtra, which came into force on 29 November 2007, proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act in relation to the land of the Petitioner would lapse. 3 In view of the fact that the Trust continued to be in possession of the land till repeal of the Urban Ceiling Act, the exemption order issued by the State Government under the Urban Ceiling Act will not take away the right of the Petitioner to receive TDR from the Corporation which has admittedly taken possession of the land for construction of the road from the Petitioner. Therefore, on the production by the Petitioner of the original and authenticate copy of the exemption order, the Pune Municipal Corporation as per its assurance will release TDR to the Petitioner to which the Petitioner is 4 wp7524.11.sxw ssm entitled on account of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. It is clarified that so far as the rights of the State Government in relation to the lands are concerned, this order will not come in the way of the State Government in making its claim if it is entitled to do so under the law. 4 It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that by the communication impugned in the Petition, the Pune Municipal Corporation has also required the Petitioner to obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is clear that the Trust is not voluntarily selling or transferring the land to the Corporation. It is compulsory acquisition of land by the Corporation for widening of the existing road and therefore obviously, the provisions of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, will not apply. 5 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)