9.wp.441-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.441 OF 2009 Philip Jasin Rebellow, since deceased through Legal Heirs, 1(a) Sheela Philip Rebellow and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 2 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.K.S. Dewal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P., for the respondent - State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The following facts can be taken as admitted. 3. By order under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"), land admeasuring 3226 square meters was 9.wp.441-09 2 declared as surplus land from the holding of the petitioner. Out of that land, land admeasuring 210 square meters was exempted because of sanction of the Scheme under Section 20 of the said Act for sanction in relation to that land. One of the conditions of exemption was that the petitioner shall build upon the land within one year of the sanction of the Scheme. The petitioner could not build upon the land and comply with the condition. Therefore, the State Government assumed that exemption is deemed to have been withdrawn and, therefore, issued notification under Section 10(1) of the Act in relation to the entire surplus land. A notice under sub-section 3 of Section 10 was issued on 7.7.2007. Then on 14.11.2007 notice under sub-section 5 of Section 10 was issued asking the petitioner to deliver possession of the surplus land within a period of 20 days from the date of the notice. 4. According to the petitioner this notice under sub-section 5 of Section 10 is invalid. It gives only 20 days to the petitioner to deliver possession. In any case, according 9.wp.441-09 3 to the petitioner pursuant to notice dated 14.11.2007, possession of the surplus land has not been taken by the respondent before 29.11.2007 the date when the ULC Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners therefore relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd., and another Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746 submitted that as the possession of the land has not been taken before 29.11.2007 and further proceedings under the ULC Act in relation to the land of the petitioner have abated. 6. The respondent Government has filed their affidavit. In the affidavit they do not claim that possession has been taken. Infact, in para-1 a categorical statement has been made that the respondents have not taken possession of the land. In this view of the matter, in the light of the law laid-down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd.(supra), the Petition succeeds and is 9.wp.441-09 4 allowed. It is declared that all further proceedings in relation to the land which is subject matter of this Petition under ULC Act have abated. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)