1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1853 OF 2011 (M/s. L.G. Builder and Developers vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 29, 2011 Heard Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed before us the following facts : (i) the petitioner filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”) in the year 2006 and on the basis thereof, case bearing No. 63/2006 was registered. (ii) Order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed in the year 2006. (iii) Exemption order under Section 20(1) of the 2 ULC Act was passed by the Competent Authority on 28/7/2006. (iv) The State Government has not passed any order of withdrawal of exemption under Section 20(2) of the ULC Act. (v) No proceedings under Section 10(3) and (5) of the ULC Act were initiated. (vi) Possession of the land in question had not been taken by the respondents prior to 29/11/2007. (vii) N.A. order was passed by the Competent Authority on 25/9/2008. (viii) 7/12 extracts dated 11/4/2011 show the name of the petitioner, which has a presumptive value in respect of possession of land in question. Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the issue about non-vesting of land in question, in the above referred facts, is covered by the decision dated 1/4/2011 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.977/2011 (Sadashiv s/o Mahadeo Malghade vs. State of Maharashtra and others), particularly in view of law declared by this Court and reflected in para (25) of the said decision and, therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed. 3 Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, does not dispute the factual and legal aspects of the matter including the fact that the issue is covered by the above referred decision of this Court. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the land in question was exempted vide order dated 28/7/2006 passed by the State Government under Section 20(1) of the ULC Act. It is also not in dispute that the State Government has not passed any order withdrawing the said exemption by exercising power under Section 20(2) of the ULC Act. It is also not in dispute that neither the competent Authority nor State Government at any point of time initiated proceedings under Section 10(3) and (5) of the ULC Act for taking over possession of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that decision dated 1/4/2011 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 977/2011 (Sadashiv s/o Mahadeo Malghade vs. State of Maharashtra and others) is squarely 4 applicable to the facts of the present case also. Reliance is placed on the observations made by this Court in para (25) of the said decision, which read thus : “25. Plain reading of the above referred observations made by this Court demonstrates that passing of order u/s 20(1) of the ULC Act of 1976 results in grant of exemption of surplus land from the provisions of the said Act. However, Section 20(2) of the ULC Act of 1976 contemplates that if, at any time, the State Government is satisfied that any of the conditions mentioned in the order of exemption passed under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 is not complied with by any person, it shall be competent for the State Government to withdraw the order of exemption, after giving reasonable opportunity to such person for making a representation against the proposed withdrawal and thereupon the provisions of Chapter III of ULC Act of 1976 shall apply accordingly. In the instant case, the State Government has not withdrawn the order of exemption dt. 21.7.2001 passed u/s 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act of 1976 for breach of condition of the said order by the petitioner and possession of the land in question continued with the petitioner till this date. So far as the aspect of vesting of land even after withdrawal of exemption is concerned, it is governed by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 10 (Chapter III) of the ULC Act of 1976 only. In the instant case, the State Government has neither withdrawn the order of 5 exemption nor has initiated any proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act of 1976 and possession of the land in question continued with the petitioner and, therefore, the land in question of the petitioner is not deemed to have been vested in the State Government in view of Section 3(1)(a) or (b) of the Repeal Act.” In the backdrop of the above referred undisputed facts and in view of the law declared by this Court in the case of Sadashiv s/o Mahadeo Malghade vs. State of Maharashtra and others (cited supra), the land of the petitioner admeasuring 12587.615 sq. meters out of the land bearing Kh. Nos. 87, 88, 89-A and 89-B, PH. No. 46, Mouza Wagdhara, Taluq Hingna, District Nagpur does not vest in the State Government and the petitioner is legally entitled to retain the possession of the same in future as an owner thereof. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj 6