Madh Macchimar Sahakari Vahatuk Sangh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar with Mr. S.M.Sabrad for the petitioner. Smt. P.S. Cardoza, AGP, for the respondents. R.M. SAVANT, JJ. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & P.C. DATE: JULY 09, 2010. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 23rd November, 2007 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the revision application under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as “the Act of 1976”) came to be dismissed.

In the instant case an order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed by the Competent Authority on 29th May, 2006. Thereafter notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act was issued and a notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act was issued on 20th December, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the excess land. The -2- W.P. No.194 of 2009 petitioner thereafter preferred a Revision Application as provided under Section 34 of the Act challenging the order passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act with a prayer that the land be returned to the society. In the meantime, respondent No.2 fixed the amount of compensation which the petitioners did not accept. The revision application came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2007.

According to the averments in the petition, possession of the land declared as surplus, however, was not taken by the Government till 29th November, 2007 when the Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court. Petition was filed on 10th September, 2008 asserting that in view of the repeal Act, the State Government cannot continue with the proceedings and the land reverts back to them. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and anr. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others, 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746. As per the above decision, in case the Government or the Competent Authority had not taken possession of the land in accordance with law on or before the date on which the Act was repealed, then the land reverts back to the land owner and no further proceedings under the said Act can be taken. In the instant case, the fact whether possession of the land was taken by the Government in accordance with law before 29th November, 2007 is in dispute. -3- W.P. No.194 of 2009 According to the petitioner, possession was not taken, however, according to the Government possession was taken. Since this is a disputed question of fact, it cannot be decided in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to file a civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The petition, therefore, cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

However, it is made clear that all the contentions available to both the sides are explicitly kept open. As the petitioner intends to file a civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs, to facilitate such a course of action, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in relation to the land which is subject matter of this petition for a period of eight weeks from today. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.