-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8720 OF 2007 Divakar alias Bhausaheb J. Khilare ... Petitioner versus Additional Collector and Competent Authority and another ...Respondents Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 29, 2010. P.C. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2007 passed by the State Government under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as “the Act”) exercising suo motu powers. By the said order, the revisional authority has set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 19th October, 2000. The competent authority on the basis of the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act by the petitioner declared 1426 sq,ntrs, of land as excess land vide order dated 17th September, 1994 which order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the appellate -2- authority under Section 33 of the Act. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the competent authority. After such remand, the competent authority by the judgment dated 19th October, 2000 excluded 1426 sq.mtrs. of land as non-vacant land and ordered that the said area should be excluded from the petitioner’s holding. The State Government took the aforesaid matter into revision after about seven years and by the impugned order dated 31st October, 2007 set aside the order of the competent authority. The State Government directed the Petitioners to pay the market price of the land as per ready reckoner within 30 days and in default to take proceedings under Section 38 of the Act. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revisional powers could not have been exercised after seven years. He submitted that in the revisional jurisdiction, the State Government could not have directed charging of the market price on the ready reckoner basis. He further submitted that even the possession is with the petitioner. The learned AGP submitted that since there was already construction on the said land, the State Government has passed equitable order of charging market price. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP. We have also gone through the orders passed by the competent authority as well as the revisional authority. -3- 6. In so far as the point in issue is concerned, the same is no more res integra and the same is covered by Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 153 of 2008 to which one of us (Majmudar, J. ) was a party. In an identical fact situation, the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition has quashed and set aside the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay and also on the ground that no such powers could be exercised under Section 34 of the said Act. Since the point raised in this petition is covered by the decision referred to above, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.