D.K.DESHMUKH, J.

1. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the first petitioner is a company incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act,1913 and now governed under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the petitioner no.1 Company.

2. The First Petitioner is the owner of lands situated at Village Panchpakhadai, at Thane and Village Majiwade at Thane. On the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”), pursuant to the First Petitioner’s Return dated 14th August, 1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the Competent Authority passed an Order dated 28th September, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring a large area as surplus vacant land. The First Petitioner challenged the aforesaid Order before the Additional Collector, Thane, who by his Order dated 29th April, 1985 stayed the operation of the Order dated 28th September, 1984 and eventually by Order dated 19th February, 1990 remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication.

3. The Competent Authority issued Corrigendums dated 2nd December, 2002 and dated 2nd January, 2003 to the said Order dated 28th September, 1984. Thereafter, a final Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003 came to be issued under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, whereby 77,630.63 square meters was declared as surplus vacant land under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. This was confirmed in the final statement of the Competent Authority dated 17th June, 2003 under Section 9 of the ULC Act. The First Petitioner pointed out the discrepancies in the area of the land described as surplus vacant land in the Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003 and also objected to the same, inter alia, on the ground that most of the land was already utilized for factory (pursuant to 1976 and 1980 Exemption Orders from the Director of Industries u/s 20 of the Act), a part was encroached upon, some lands had been sanctioned for extension of HRD Centre, etc. Therefore, the same could not be declared as surplus vacant land. On 17th June, 2003 the Competent Authority issued a Notification under Sections 10(1) of the ULC Act. Thereafter the Competent Authority issued a Notification dated 3rd February, 2004 under Sections 10(3) of the ULC Act stating that the surplus vacant land is deemed to be acquired. On 24th August, 2004 the First Petitioner submitted a Scheme under Section 20 of the ULC Act for land admeasuring 22,885 square metres at Village Panchpakhadi. An earlier scheme submitted u/s 20 had not been decided upon. On 8th November, 2004 notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act came to be issued, whereby the First Petitioner was called upon to hand over possession of the aforesaid land stated to be surplus vacant land admeasuring 77,630.63 square meters under the Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003. The First Petitioner made several representations seeking withdrawal of the S.10(3) and S.10(5) notifications, setting out inter alia that the aforesaid Scheme under Section 20 had been submitted and was pending and the reasons why the aforesaid land could not be declared Surplus Vacant Land. The Petitioners also represented that an exemption Order dated 10th March, 1980 had been issued by the Directorate of Industries. The First Petitioner further submitted that there were plans sanctioned to construct a HRD Centre and Staff quarters, etc., due to which, the aforesaid land was not surplus vacant land. In response to the aforesaid representations by the First Petitioner, the Competent Authority by its letter dated 28th April, 2005 informed the First Petitioner that only the State Government could withdraw the S.10(3) and S.10(5) Notification and that its remedy was to file a Revisio