1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2009 Nisha Ram Pawar : Petitioner versus The Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Milind Parab i/by M/s.Milind Parab & Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. P S Cardoza, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18th June 2010 P.C. 1 Rule. 2 Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondents. With the consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3 The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land situated at village Mangaon, Taluka Kalyan. The Petitioner, on the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, coming to force, had filed a Vivaran Patrak” under Section 6(1) before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar, Thane. Pursuant to filing of the Vivaran Patrak, the Competent Authority passed an order in November 1998 under Section 2 8(4) of the said Act declaring portion of land as an excess land. 4 It appears that thereafter on 23/06/2006 a Notification dated 19/04/2006 under Section 10(1) of the Act came to be issued. Thereafter a Notification under Section 10(3) was published in the Gazette on 7th December 2006. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued on 20th February 2007 to the Petitioner for handing over the possession of the surplus vacant land. 5 Though the Petitioner filed an Appeal bearing No.352 of 2007 under Section 37 of the ULC Act before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in view of the Repeal of the said Act the said Appeal now cannot be decided. 6 On behalf of the Respondents, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, an additional affidavit in reply has been filed by Kamlesh Sakharam Sonale Incharge Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhanagar Urban Agglomeration, Thane. In the said affidavit, a categorical statement has been made that the actual and physical possession of the land in question was not taken by the Respondents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. 3 Considering the said factual position and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and ors. reported in 200(5), Bom.C.R. 746, the above Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their own costs. 7 It is pertinent to note that though in number of matters notices for possession under Section 10(5) of the said Act were given, the authorities failed to take possession of the lands in question. This we have observed is a common recurring feature in all the matters. Whilst expressing our dis-satisfaction in the manner in which the officers of the State Government especially those connected with implementation of ULC Act have conducted themselves. We deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to conduct an enquiry at least in those matters where notice under section 10(5) was given as to why possession has not been obtained by the concerned officers. The State Government may, therefore, conduct the said enquiry and if it deems fit appropriate departmental action may be initiated against the erring officers. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, 4 Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra for information and necessary action. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]