1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2009 Shri Bhagirath Dhondiram Chavan & ors. : Petitioners 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 : 18 th 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 Petitioners claim to be the owners of the land situated at village Tisgaon, Jarimari Nagar, Tal.Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The Petitioners claim through one Namdeo Mahadu Gaikwad from whom they purchased the land bearing Survey No.28 Hiss No.8 on 04/02/1985 by way of registered sale deed. One Gopal Mahadu Gaikwad, who is the brother of said Namdeo Mahadu Gaikwad, on the Urban Land (Ceiling and 2 Regulation) Act, coming to force, had filed a Return under Section 6(1) before the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar, Thane. Pursuant to filing of the return, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 14/10/1980 under Section 8(4) of the said Act declaring large area as suplus land including area of Survey No.28/8. 4 It appears that thereafter a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, came to be issued on 30th October 1980, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) dated 16th October 2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued on 18th January 2006 for handing over the possession of surplus vacant land. 5 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. 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 2000(5), Bom.C.R. 746, the above Petition is required to be allowed and is 3 accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their own costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]