Revised Section 8(4) order under ULC Act supersedes prior Section 20 exemption, rendering it non est despite Repeal Act savings for valid exemptions only.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1 Petitioner No.1, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, interalia engaged in the business of development of real estate in and around the State of Maharashtra, claiming to be the owner of immovable property in form of piece of land bearing Gut No.61/1 admeasuring 46,400 sq. mtr. and Gut No.61/2 admeasuring 8100 sq. mtrs. aggregating to 54,500 sq. mtrs in Thane, situated at Village Chitalsar, Manpada, Thane, alongwith its Director i.e. Petitioner No.2, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :-

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 are not applicable and proceedings have abated under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 in respect of the said Land i.e.. Gut No. 61/1 and 61/2, Village Chitalsar. Manpada. Thane totally admeasuring 54,500 square meters:

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 4 to withdraw/cancel the communication dated 25th February 2021 issued to Respondent No. 5 (Exhibit "V" hereto) and directing Respondent No. 5 to delete the Impugned Mutation Entry No. 1125 dated 26th February 2021 (Exhibit "W" hereto) from the revenue records for the said Land i.e. Gut No. 61/1 and 61/2, Village Chitalsar, Manpada, Thane totally admeasuring 54,500 square meters;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to issuance of the Impugned Letter dated 25^th May 2021 (Exhibit “Z” hereto) and the Impugned Letter dated 10^th June 2021 (Exhibit “CC” hereto) issued by Respondent No.3 and after examining the legality and validity thereof, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Letter dated 25^th May 2021 (Exhibit “Z” hereto) and the Impugned Letter dated 10^th June 2021 (Exhibit “CC” hereto);

(c-1) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari calling for records and proceedings pertaining to issuance of the Impugned Letter (Exhibit HH hereto) and the Impugned Notice (Exhibit II hereto) issued by Respondent No. 3 and after going through the legality and validity thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Letter (Exhibit II hereto) and the Impugned Notice (Exhibit II hereto).”

2 On 11/10/2021, the Petition was admitted by recording prima-facie observations to the following effect :-

“32. Of course, in that case original section 8(4) order was set aside by the Appellate Authority whereafter the matter was sent back on remand. It was on remand that fresh order under section 8(4) was passed and it was in that context the above principle of law has been laid down. Nonetheless in the said case, this Court referred to section 3(1)(b) of the ULC Repeal Act and held that the savings clause under section 3 of the ULC Repeal Act would operate only in cases where a valid exemption order under section 20 of the ULC Act is existing. When the subsequent revised order was passed by the Competent Authority under section 8(4) of the ULC Act whereby it was held that the owner did not have land in excess of the ceiling limit, question of existence of exemption order under section 20 of the ULC Act would not arise. Once it is held that exemption order under section 20 of the said Act ceases to exist or it stood cancelled upon the Competent Authority passing fresh order under section 8(4) there can be no mutation entry pertaining to the land in question stating that the land is subject to exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act for industrial user.

33. Prima facie the principle of law laid down in Bombay Fibre