Writ Petition No. 3488 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Feb 2025
- Bench
- ABHAY MANTRI
- Neutral citation
- 2025:BHC-NAG:1876-DB
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed and disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2024 (Shri Vidyanand s/o Upasrao Masarkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Urban Development and ULC, Mumbai and ors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : 24-02-2025 The petition seeks a declaration, that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of Survey No. 37/A (Old Survey No.68) admeasuring 2.10 HR of Mouza Wanadongri, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur has lapsed. It is an admitted position, that declaration U/s 6(a) o the ULC Act was filed on 29.9.1976 on account of which after permitting the original owner, to retain 1500 sqmtrs of land, by the order 4.5.1987 (p54-A) was passed by the competent authority. The balance 19500 sqmtrs of land, was declared as surplus. A notification u/s 10(3) of the ULC Act, came to be published in the official gazette on 1.11.2007 (p58). It is however contended, that possession of the land has not been taken in terms of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act on account of which in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 the proceedings stands lapsed.
What is necessary to note, is that the notice u/s 10(5) of the ULC Act placed on record dated 7.11.2007 does not indicate any date on which possession is to be taken(p59). There is no other material on record placed by the 2 20wp3488.2024..odt respondents to indicate taking over of the possession, of the land in question, except for an entry in the 7/12 extract (p78). Mere entry in the 7/12 extract, which is for a fiscal purpose, cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act of demonstrating delivery of possession. That being the position, since, the delivery of possession is not demonstrated on record, Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 does not stands satisfied in view of which, it will have to be held, that the ULC proceedings in Case No. 2660/1976 in respect of land bearing survey 37/A (Old Survey No. 68) admeasuring
Operative part
2.10 HR, mouza Wanadongri, Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur stands lapsed. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Belkhede
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed and disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Urban Land Ceiling Act; Repeal Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Feb 2025. The bench was ABHAY MANTRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.