Serious disputed facts on Section 10(5) notice service and physical possession taking under ULC Act prevent writ determination of abatement under Repeal Act Section 4; relegation to civil suit appropriate.

ORDER: (Per Manish Pitale, J)

1. The petitioners claim that proceedings in respect of the subject lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’) abated and that they are entitled to benefit of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Repeal Act’). According to the petitioners, since possession of the subject lands was never taken by the State in accordance with the provisions of the ULC Act, with the enactment of the ULC Repeal Act and operation of Section 4 thereof, the proceedings abated and consequently, notification and notices issued by respondent- Competent Authority under the provisions of the ULC Act, deserve to be set aside. As opposed to this, the respondent-State contends that possession was taken and that in any case, when the said question is a disputed question of fact, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction, ought not to entertain the pleas of the petitioners and that therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

2. Events leading upto filing of the petition, as discernible from the petition, reply affidavits and the documents on record, show that the subject lands are lands located in survey Nos.401, 402, 403 and 404 at Nashik, totally admeasuring about 91,102 sq. mtrs. Originally, the lands were owned by one Ahmed Saheb Kokni. He expired in the year 1954 and thereafter, the lands were held by Abdul Sattar Ahmed Saheb Kokni (Abdul Sattar) and Abdul Razzak Ahmed Saheb Kokni (Abdul Razzak). The petitioners are the legal heirs of Abdul Razzak. There was a tenant in the said lands named Madhukar Shankar Sonawane.

3. Upon the enactment of the ULC Act, Abdul Sattar filed a statement under Section 6(1) thereof on 12.08.1976, wherein it was erroneously stated that Abdul Razzak was a tenant. As a matter of fact, Madhukar Sonawane was the tenant. The statement recorded the names of 10 family members of Abdul Sattar, including himself. On 16.08.1976, the said tenant Madhukar Sonawane also filed his statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. The said Abdul Razzak i.e. the predecessor of the petitioners did not file any such statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act.

4. On 28.10.1981, Abdul Sattar passed away leaving behind his legal representatives. On 20.10.1986, Abdul Razzak filed his objections with respondent No.1 i.e. the Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the ULC Act and informed the said Authority that his share was divided in the said lands and that he ought to be heard before taking any decision in the matter. Abdul Razzak relied upon decree of a Civil Court. On 08.07.1987, Abdul Razzak expired leaving behind his legal representatives. On 06.09.1994, mutation entry was undertaken recording partition between legal heirs of Abdul Sattar and Abdul Razzak. It is claimed that the branch of Abdul Sattar ended up having ownership and possession of 25,364 sq. mtrs., the branch of Abdul Razzak had 54,404 sq. mtrs. and the tenant Madhukar Sonawane had 2,000 sq. mtrs.

5. On 01.10.1997, the said tenant Madhukar Sonawane approached the Competent Authority to reconsider the said order passed under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, in the light of certain