YASHWANT ESHWAR SARNAIK AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                34-WP-11628-2025.doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11628 OF 2025

Yashwant Eshwar Sarnaik and others                     ...Petitioners
           Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others                    ...Respondents

                                  ——————
Mr. Ketan Joshi - Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. Abhijit Adgule -Advocate for Respondent No. 4
Mr. A. P. Vanarase - AGP for the State.
                                  ——————
                                    Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date     : October 07, 2026.
P. C. :


1.         By the present petition, the relief sought by the Petitioner is a

declaration that the ULC proceedings in respect of the lands in question

stand abated in view of the ULC Repeal Act, 2007 and, consequently, the

illegal entries made in the Property Register of the Kolhapur Municipal

Corporation be deleted. The lands in question are Survey Nos. 1050/1,

1051/4, 1051/3, 770/1 and 770/2 (Part).


2.         The Petitioner – Yashwant Eshwar Sarnaik was the original owner

of the lands in question and had iled returns under Section 6(1) of the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the ULC Act’).



SG Punde                            1 of 6
                                                             34-WP-11628-2025.doc



Pursuant to the said returns iled under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the

proceedings under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act were initiated on

12.12.1978 and ultimately culminated in an order declaring the said

lands as surplus lands. The Competent Authority published a notice

under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act on 12.02.1979, and a subsequent

notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act dated 10.04.1985 was issued,

thereby ixing 21.05.1985 as the date for surrender of possession.


3.         The notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act came to be

challenged before this Court by iling Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1985. On

06.05.1985, an interim order came to be passed staying the operation of

the impugned notice dated 10.04.1985. As a result, possession of the

lands remained with the original owners. Subsequently, the Petition

came to be allowed by Judgment and Order dated 05.09.1985, and

directions were issued for initiating fresh proceedings under Section 8

of the ULC Act. On 03.01.2005, a fresh order under Section 8(4) of the

ULC Act came to be passed. Even thereafter, no further steps were

taken. The ULC Act came to be repealed in the year 2007, however, the

entries remained in the property register of the Municipal Corporation.



4.         The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has taken the

Court through the statutory provisions and would submit that, by virtue




SG Punde                            2 of 6
                                                            34-WP-11628-2025.doc



of the stay granted by this Court in the year 1985, possession was not

taken under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act and remained with the

landowners. He would further submit that, when the fresh ULC

proceedings were at the stage of Section 8(4), no further proceedings

took place and in the meantime the ULC Act came to be repealed, by

reason whereof the proceedings stood abated.



5.         Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Kolhapur Municipal

Corporation would point out that the Corporation had written to the

Urban Development Department, setting out the facts in question, and

had stated that prior to 29.11.2007, actual possession had not been

taken and there does not appear to be any fresh proceedings under

Section 10 of the ULC Act pursuant to the order passed by the High

Court. He would submit that the Corporation has sought guidance from

the State Government in respect of the entries which continue to

remain in the Property Card Register of the Municipal Corporation. He

submits that the report was submitted on 14.02.2025 and, as of date,

there is no response to the said report.



6.         The learned AGP would submit that, under the provisions of the

ULC Act, in the year 1978, the lands were declared as surplus and a

notice was issued on 10.04.1985 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. He


SG Punde                           3 of 6
                                                            34-WP-11628-2025.doc



would submit that, on 21.05.1985, the Tahsildar was informed about

taking possession of the lands and handing over the same to the

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Dispensary and Primary School. He

would submit that information was sought from the Tahsildar as to

whether possession of the lands had been taken over and whether the

same had been transferred to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

Dispensary and Primary School. He would submit that, as per the report

of the Tahsildar dated 25/30.04.2025, possession of the lands has not

been transferred to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.



7.         Considered the submissions and perused the reports.



8.         The statutory provisions under the ULC Act commence with the

declaration/statement iled by the owners of the land holding land in

excess of the ceiling limit, pursuant to which the area of excess land is

determined by the Competent Authority and a inal statement is

prepared by the Competent Authority after hearing the objections.

Section 10 of the ULC Act (since repealed) provides for the acquisition

of excess vacant land and, under sub-section (5) of Section 10, where

any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3)

of Section 10, the Competent Authority may, by notice in writing, order

any person who may be in possession thereof to surrender or deliver


SG Punde                           4 of 6
                                                               34-WP-11628-2025.doc



possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly

authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty [30] days

of the service of the notice.



9.         The proceedings under the ULC Act had reached the stage of

issuance of notice under Section 10(5). However, before possession

could be handed over, the said notice came to be challenged, pursuant

to which the proceedings came to be stayed and, subsequently, the

Petition came to be allowed. Resultantly, fresh proceedings under

Section 8 of the ULC Act were directed to be initiated in respect of the

area of vacant land, which did not proceed further and, in the meantime,

the ULC Act came to be repealed. The reports placed on record by the

Municipal Corporation and the ULC Department would conirm the

factual position as set out in the Petition and also that possession was

not taken and handed over to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The

reports further indicate that, after the earlier proceedings under the

ULC Act, the proceedings were initiated which did not reach the stage of

Section 10 of the ULC Act after the order passed by this Court.



10.        In view of the aforesaid position brought on record, the continued

entries in the Property Register of the Municipal Corporation are

unsustainable. The Corporation itself, by its communication dated


SG Punde                             5 of 6
                                                                         34-WP-11628-2025.doc



14.02.2025, has sought guidance in respect of deletion of these entries,

and the said entries are required to be deleted. The Petition deserves to

be allowed.



11.        In light of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘A’ and ‘B’ thereof, which read as under: -

       “[a]      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus and/or
                 any Writ and/or order in the nature Mandamus and/or any other
                 appropriate order or direction thereby declaring the ULC
                 proceedings in respect of lands in questions are abetted in view of
                 the ULC Repeal Act 2007;

       [b]       This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus and/or
                 any Writ and/or order in the nature Mandamus and/or any other
                 appropriate order or direction thereby directing the Respondent
                 No. 4 Municipal Corporation to delete the illegal entries made in
                 the property register of the Corporation.”



12.        In the event any application is iled by the Petitioners for

development, the Corporation is at liberty to consider the same in

accordance with law.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                                [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




SG Punde                                 6 of 6