IMPORTANT POINT
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 abates pending proceedings under the Principal Act if the State has not taken possession of the excess land before the Repeal Act came into force.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.W.CHANDWANI,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners seek a declaration that the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Principal Act" for brevity) have abated in view of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Repeal Act" for brevity). Consequent declaration is also sought to declare that the land of Khasra Nos. 71/1 and 72/2 Mauza Wanadongri does not vest in State Government.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and is an owner of land Kh. Nos.71/1 and 71/2, admeasuring 26700 square meters, situated at Mouza Wanadongri, Nagpur. Petitioner No.1 purchased the said land from one Jaswinder Kaur Gurmitsingh Chawla and Kailash Pandurang Thakre by registered sale-deeds dtd. 23/10/2015 and 5/12/2015, respectively.

4. The land was originally belonged to one Giridhar Dupare and his brothers jointly as an ancestral property. In ULC Case No.2296/76 Giridhar Dupare had filed a statement of vacant land owned by Dupare Family under Sec. 6(1) of the Principal Act. The competent authority declared the aforesaid land of Dupare Family as surplus vacant land vide notification dtd. 19/01/1989 issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Principal Act. Thereafter, notification under Sec. 10(3) of the Principal Act also came to be issued declaring the deemed acquisition of the said land by the Government of Maharashtra without mentioning the date on which the land will vest in State Government. A notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Principal Act for taking possession of the said land without mentioning the date on which the possession would be taken, has also been issued.

5. It is the case of petitioners that no steps, thereafter, were taken by the Government in the above ULC case. No possession of the excess land was ever taken nor compensation was paid. Dupare brothers remained in possession of the aforesaid land. Thereafter, legal hairs of Dupare brothers sold the land to one Jaswinder Kaur Gurmitsingh Chawla and Kailash Pandurang Thakre, from whom, petitioner No.1 purchased the aforesaid land. Now, petitioner No.1 is in possession of the said property.

6. Respondent No.2 has contended in affidavit-in-reply that the notification under Sec. 10(3) of the Principal Act was issued in ULC Case No.2226/76 in respect of the aforesaid land. The notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Principal Act was also issued and possession of the land was sought to be delivered. It is contented that by way of the notification issued under Sec. 10(3) of the Principal Act, the aforesaid land is vested in the Government of Maharashtra. The subsequent sale-deeds being void ab initio do not stand, therefore, he sought rejection of the petition.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. A.A. Naik appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A.S. Fulzele for respondent Nos.1 to 3. We have also given our due consideration to the provisions of the Principal Act and the Repeal Act. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of ULC Case No.2226/76, produced by learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Fulzele.

8. Indisputably, the proceedings under the Principal Act vide ULC No.2226/76 came to be initiated on filing a statement by Giridhar Dupare and brothers under Sec. 6 of the Principal Act. The land about area of 20700 square meters came to be declared as an excess land and, accordingly, the notification and the notice for possession under Sec. 10(3) of the Principal Act for vesting the land in State Government was issued. The notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Principal Act, for taking possession of the aforesaid land also came to be issued.

9. Notably, the notification issued under Sec. 10(3) of the Principal Act shows that though the declaration has been made that the land will be ve