Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.8833/2009 Surendrasinh Balwantrao Powar ..Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ..Respondents. Mr S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr V.s. Gokhale, A.G.P., for the Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 19TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. After commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act ), the petitioner filed his return. Pursuant to that return an order was made on 19.2.1993 declaring certain land as surplus from the holding of the petitioner. Notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act was issued on 9.8.2007. Then on 27.11.2007 notice was issued under Section 10 (5) asking the petitioner to deliver possession of the surplus land. On 29.11.2007 the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Till that date possession of the surplus land continued with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd.,and another Vs. Addl.Collector and Competent Authority and Ors reported in 2008 (5) Bom.C.R. 746 all further proceedings in relation to the surplus land have abated or lapsed as on 29.11.2007. Therefore, according to the petitioner alleged claim of the State Government that it has taken possession of the surplus land on 23.4.2008 is not valid. 3. We have heard the learned A.G.P.,for the State. We have perused the record including the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. It is clear from the affidavit-in-reply that possession of the land declared as surplus was with the petitioner and was not taken by the State Government at least till 29.11.2007. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Volta s case (cited supra) all further proceedings in relation to surplus land under the Act have abated or lapsed with effect from 29.11.2007. 4. In the result, for the reasons recorded, the petition succeeds and is allowed. It is held that as a consequence of the Repeal Act, further proceedings in relation to the surplus land which is subject matter of this petition stood abated with effect from 29.11.2007 and therefore the Government could not have taken possession on 23.4.2008. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)