- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5067 OF 2009 Ashok Padya Patil ..Petitioner Vs. The Competent Authority Thane, Urban Agglomeration & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Deepak Poonamiya, for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is having land Survey Nos. 19/6 and 84/2 admeasuring 720 Sq. mts. situate at village Katai, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. Respondent No.1 declared 4280 sq. mt. Land surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULCR Act). The petitioner in the present petition has restricted his claim to the extent of 370 Sq. mt. - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has filed a return on 20-11-2001 under section 6(1) of the ULCR Act. On 27-8-2004 respondent No.1 passed order under the provisions of section 8(4) of the ULCR Act and declared the surplus land. A notification under section 10(1) of the ULCR Act was published in Official Gazette on 1st September 2005. A notification under section 10(3) of the ULCR Act was published in Government Gazette on 2nd February 2006. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner under section 10(5) of the ULCR Act on 7th March 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as possession of the land in question admeasuring 370 sq. mt. as of today is with the petitioner, therefore, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of – Voltas Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority Thane & Ors. [2008(5) ALL.MR 537] and after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (1999) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Repealing Act’] came into force on 29-11-2007, all these proceedings initiated under the ULCR Act are abated/vitiated. The learned AGP does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that possession of the land in question is with the - 3 - petitioner, and the issue raised in the petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. (supra). 3. In view of the above undisputed fact, it is evident that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the law declared by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. (supra) and therefore, all these proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority under the ULCR Act after the Repealing Act came into force with effect from 29th November 2007, stands abated/vitiated and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to retain the land in question admeasuring 370 Sq. mt., which does not vest in the State. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. 4. It is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for mutating his name. If such a request is made, we expect the competent authority to take appropriate steps accordingly. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]