The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of surplus vacant land under the ULC Act was taken by the competent authority in accordance with the legal provisions, and the petitioner's claim to the property was not valid.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a declaration that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title and interest in a immovable property/land bearing CTS No. 531, Survey No. 20, Hissa No. 13 of Revenue Village Valnai, Taluka Borivali, District Mumbai. The consequential directions are to delete the name of the second respondent from the property register and/or card and substitute it with that of the petitioner.

3. The proceedings are under the then Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”). The petitioner in this writ petition claims to be a constituted attorney of one Hasmat Jamal Ghanchi and Abdul Latif K. Shaikh. They are partners of M/s. Skyline Enterprises. At the same time, the petitioner claims to be the constituted attorney of one Babu Bhaskar Bhandari and others. The respondents to this petition are the State of Maharashtra and the competent authority under the ULC Act.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bhandari family was the owner of this land and some others. The petitioner is, however, concerned with the above described land. It is stated that one Smt. Gunjubai Manik Bhandari and others had filed a return and on the basis of statements under section 6(1) of the ULC Act so also some preliminary inquiry and measurement, a draft statement under section 8(2) of the ULC Act was drawn. The objections were invited and ultimately, an order was passed under section 8(4) of the ULC Act. As per the said order, the above land and to the extent of 1367.3 square meters was declared to be retainable property. The balance was abviously surplus vacant land. After taking into consideration the statement under section 8(4), a final statement under section 9 was prepared. It is the case of the petitioner that this statement has attained finality. It has not been altered, amended or modified by any order. The petitioner submits that the retainable property was dealt with by Gunjubai Bhandari and others. They entered into an agreement with M/s. Skyline Enterprises dated 22nd April, 2002. It was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Borivali. Smt. Gunjubai and others executed a power of attorney in favour of M/s. Skyline Enterprises which includes a power to appoint any other person as their agent/attorney. The said M/s. Skyline Enterprises was not in a position to develop the property. It assigned the property for development purpose to the petitioner vide two separate development agreements dated 4th April, 2006 and 16th April, 2006. Two separate power of attorneys were also executed in favour of the petitioner on 16th April, 2006. Both the agreements as well as the power of attorneys were duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Borivali, Mumbai. The reason for division of the property was that there were two separate agreements. The petitioner states that in pursuance of the development agreement he applied for permission for development of the said property. An Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) was granted on 3rd March, 2007. The petitioner claims that the Municipal Corporation also sanctioned the plans and granted commencement certificate dated 26th April, 2007. Pursuant to this permission, the petitioner made construction of plinth level in this property/land.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no voluntary surrender nor the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed. The petitioner is in possession. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner applied for and obtained the property card in relation to this land, it was revealed that the name of the State of Maharashtra is entered therein. That is because a letter of possession dated 18th October, 2006 was issued, pursuant to which, this name