1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8446 OF 2007 Balwant Laxman Tajanpure ) age major, Occ. Agriculture ) R/o Village Chehedi (B) ) Taluka and District: Nashik. ).. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra ) through its Secretary to the ) Ministry of Housing and Urban ) Development Department ) having office at Mantralaya, ) Mumbai 400 032. ) 2. The Additional Collector and ) Competent Authority ) Nashik Urban Agglomeration, ) Nashik. ) 3. The Tahasildar, ) Nashik City, Nashik . ).. Respondents. Mr. G.S.Godbole with Mr. Vikas Takalkar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader, for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 26th November, 2009. JUDGMENT: (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) 2 1. The Petition is on board for direction. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing immediately. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Land survey Nos. 32/3, 28/1B, 28/1C, 120/2 (1), 30/1A/2 and 29/2/3 situated at Village Chehedi Budruk, Taluka & District Nashik, belonging to the petitioner, was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, “the Ceiling Act”) and the notification under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act was issued on 5.1.2007. According to the petitioner, in view of the repeal of the Ceiling Act, the said notification is liable to be set aside and no further action can be taken by the Government. 3. On behalf of the State, an affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Tukaram G. Pawar, Additional Collector and Competent Authority, who confirmed that inspite of the notification, possession of the land is still with the petitioner. 4. It is now settled in Voltas Ltd. and Anr. vs. Additional Collector & Competent Authority 2008 (5) Bom.C.R.746 that if possession of the land is not taken under the Ceiling Act, all legal proceedings in respect of any order made or purported to be made under the Ceiling Act pending immediately before the 3 commencement of the Repealing Act before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate in view of Section 4 of the Repealing Act which came into force on 29.11.2007 in the State of Maharashtra. As in the present case, possession of the land has not been taken prior to the enforcement of the Repealing Act, further proceedings for acquisition or taking possession of the land have to abate under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that further proceedings for taking possession for acquisition of the land stand abated. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)