THOMAS MORE PEREIRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
                      Manoj                                              201-WP-5381-2005.doc
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.04.09
10:34:52 +0530                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.5381 OF 2005

                              Thomas More Pereira
                              16-Bund Garden Road,
                              Pune-411001                                   …..Petitioner

                                    Vs.

                      1.      The State of Maharashtra

                      2.      Additional Collector &
                              Competent Authority, Pune

                      3.      The Secretary,
                              Housing & Special Assistance,
                              Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya
                              Mumbai-400 032.

                      4.      Maharashtra Housing & Area
                              Development Authority
                              duly constituted under the provisions
                              of Maharashtra Housing & Area
                              Development Act, 1976, having its
                              office at Griha Nirman Bhavan,
                              Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051.                  …..Respondents


                                                        WITH
                                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2022
                                                          IN
                                           WRIT PETITION NO.5381 OF 2005

                              Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
                              Pune, Griha Nirman Bhavan,
                              Agarkar Nagar, Pune- 411001                 …..Applicant
                                    Vs.
                              Thomas More Pereira
                              16-Bund Garden Road,
                              Pune-411001                                 …..Respondent


                                                                                            1/12
Manoj                                                   201-WP-5381-2005.doc

              __________________________________________

Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w Adv. Sean Wassoodew & Ashna Shah, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Add. GP a/w S.L. Babar, AGP for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande a/w Ms. Anjali Shinde, Ms. Rachna Harpale &
Mr. Santosh Kurade, for the Respondent No.4.
             __________________________________________

                                 CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                         SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
                           RESERVED ON : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026
                        PRONOUNCED ON : 8th APRIL, 2026

JUDGMENT:- (PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

1)           Instant Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The subject matter of this Petition is the land

admeasuring total 20,948.40 Sq.Mts. from Bund Garden Road C.T.S.

No.13/2, Pune (“the land” for short) in relation to which proceedings has

been initiated under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling &

Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”). During

pendency of said proceedings, the Act came to be repealed by the Urban

Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Consequently, the

controversy in this Petition has been narrowed and therefore this Court is

called upon to adjudicate this Petition only in relation to prayer clause “ a

(iii)” which reads as under :-

             “a (iii)      that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
             as a consequence of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
             Regulation) Act, 1976, further proceedings pursuant to the

                                                                        2/12
Manoj                                                       201-WP-5381-2005.doc

                order made by the State Government on 6 th August, 2005 as
                well as further proceedings under the provisions of the
                principal Act in relation to the land of the Petitioner mentioned
                in the declaration made under Section 10(3) of the principal
                Act lapses and those lands no longer vest in the State
                Government.”

2)              Record indicates that, Rule and interim relief has been granted

on 28.09.2011.

3)              Heard Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for Petitioner, Ms. Solunke,

the learned Addl.G.P. for Respondent-State and Mr. Deshpande, learned

counsel for the Respondent No.4. Perused the entire record. Respondent

Nos.2 and 4 have filed their separate replies and opposed the Petition.

4)              Facts giving rise to this Petition are that, on the commencement

of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to

as the “the Act”), Petitioner’s mother had filed a statement before the

Competent Authority under Section 6 (1) of the Act on 10.09.1976.

Simultaneously, two sons of the deceased mother viz., the Petitioner and his

brother also filed their returns under the Act which were clubbed together

for disposal.

4.1)            On 20.09.1977 the Competent Authority issued draft statement

under Section 8(3) of the said Act. The mother and her two sons filed their

objections resisting that draft statement. On 22.12.1977 the Competent

Authority dismissed the objections and issued an Order under Section 8(4)

                                                                            3/12
Manoj                                                  201-WP-5381-2005.doc

of the said Act and directed final statement to be issued under Section 9 of

the Act without any change in the draft statement. Out of the said land,

total 13,410.88 Sq.Mts. land was declared as surplus. On 22.01.1979

Application under Section 20 filed by the deceased mother on the ground of

undue hardship came to be rejected. On 24.02.1979 the surplus land was

allotted by the Competent Authority to Pune Area Housing Development

Board on payment of Rs.77,200/- as occupancy price. The said excess land

has still not been vested in the Government under Section 10(3) of the Act.

4.2)        On 07.03.1979, the deceased mother filed an Appeal under

Section 33 of the Act against the Order dated 22.12.1977 passed under

Section 8(4). On 09.03.1979 the Collector and the Appellate Authority

rejected the said Appeal on the grounds of laches. On 12.03.1979

Notification under Section 10(3) of the said Act was published and

thereunder the surplus land was vested in the Government.

4.3)        On 29.03.1979 the deceased mother filed an Application under

Section 21 of the Act for exemption on the basis of a scheme of construction

for Low Income Group Housing which was within the time limit permitted

by the Government. On 29.03.1979 itself the deceased mother filed Writ

Petition No.877 of 1979 before this Court challenging the Notification

under Section 10(3) of the Act. Therein, a stay was granted on the next day.

The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 24.09.1982. Therefore, Civil

Appeal No.3331 of 1982 alongwith Misc. Petition No.27301 of 1982 was

                                                                       4/12
Manoj                                                  201-WP-5381-2005.doc

filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.10.1982, challenging the

Judgments of this Court dated 24.09.1982 and for grant of stay respectively.

Vide Order dated 05.11.1982, stay was granted by the Apex Court.

4.4)        On 14.03.1987 the deceased mother submitted a further

scheme under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, being Scheme No.A-225 for

construction of houses for weaker Sections of the society which is still

pending with the State Government. On 08.07.1996 the exemption

Application made under Section 21 of the said Act was rejected by the

Commissioner, Pune Division and the Competent Authority.

4.5)        On 25.07.1996 the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil

Appeal No.3331 of 1982 filed against the Court Order dated 24.09.1982

and upheld the Notification under Section 10(3) of the said Act. In the said

decision, in paragraph 6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-

            “The Power of examination and exemption would
            arise only when the Government becomes the
            owner and the erstwhile owner seeks to obviate the
            hardship under Section 20 or to sub serve the
            housing scheme of weaker sections under Section
            21 as envisaged there under. There at, the
            Government is required to consider whether the
            proposals made by the erstwhile owner for
            undertaking the scheme as envisaged under
            Section 21 of hardship as envisaged under Section
            20 for exemption would merit consideration.”


                                                                       5/12
Manoj                                                    201-WP-5381-2005.doc

4.6)        On 07.08.1996 the deceased mother of the Petitioner filed

Appeal under Section 33 of the said Act with Respondent No.1 challenging

the Order dated 08.07.1996 and sought for stay. As stated in the Petition,

Respondent No.3 gave oral instructions to the Competent Authority not to

take possession. Accordingly, since 1996 no possession of the surplus land is

taken, although there was no formal stay thereon.

4.7)        Respondent No.2 served a notice dated 14.08.1998 on the

Petitioner thereby intimating that possession of the surplus land would be

taken on 19.08.1998, at 1:00 p.m. On 17.08.1998 the Petitioner applied to

Respondent No.3 to bring him on record in the Appeal filed by the deceased

mother as her legal heir and also prayed to stay the dispossession. On

18.08.1998 the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.4446 of 1998 praying

inter alia that injunction may be issued restraining the Respondents from

taking possession of the land mentioned in the notice dated 14.08.1998

during the pendency of the said Appeal filed on 07.08.1996 and also for 15

days from the date of service of an adverse Order upon the Petitioner, if any,

passed in the said Appeal and for ad-interim injunction. The ad-interim

injunction was granted by this Court.

4.8)        By the Order dated 31.08.1998 this Court disposed off the Writ

Petition No.4446 of 1998, thereby restraining the Respondents from taking

possession of the lands mentioned in the said notice dated 14.08.1998

during the pendency of the said Appeal and also for 15 days from date of

                                                                         6/12
Manoj                                                     201-WP-5381-2005.doc

service of an adverse Order upon the Petitioner, if any, passed in the said

Appeal. Thereafter no notice for hearing of the said Appeal was received

from Respondent Nos.1 & 3 nor adverse Order was passed in that Appeal

till date. On 12.08.2005, at 18:00 hours, the Petitioner received phone call

from Respondent No.2’s office when he was informed that Order for taking

possession of the surplus lands has been passed; that, the officers of the

Respondents will be coming on the site on 17.08.2005 for executing the

said Order, and that, the Petitioner should remain present on that day to

hand over the possession. In this background present Petition is filed.

5)           Mr. Balsara, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that, the aforesaid Appeal filed on 07.08.1996 is yet not decided. The

Application dated 15.04.1987 submitting a scheme under Section 20(1)(a)

of the Act is also pending. Be that as it may. Till date, possession of the land

in question has not been taken over by the Respondents and therefore the

Petitioner continues to be in possession of said land. Since the Act of 1976

has been repealed in the state of Maharashtra with effect from 29.11.2007,

therefore all proceedings initiated under the said Act of 1976 and pending

before any Court on the date of implementation of the repealing Act, shall

abate. Consequently, the Respondents have been statutorily barred from

taking possession of the subject matter land. Hence, Petition may be

allowed in terms of the prayer clause “a (iii)”.

6)           In reply, Ms.Solunke, the learned Add. GP for Respondent

                                                                           7/12
Manoj                                                   201-WP-5381-2005.doc

Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for Respondent No.4

have submitted that, from time to time, necessary actions were taken by the

Respondents to take the possession of the land in question. Meanwhile, the

Notification under Section 10(3) and notice under Section 10(5) of the Act

were issued. Ms.Solunke and Mr. Deshpande submitted that although the

ULC Act came to be repealed on 29.11.2007, it is of no consequence.

Because, on issuance of the said Notification, the surplus land was vested in

the Government. The land has been already allotted to Respondent No.4 –

the Pune Area Housing & Department for the public purpose and occupancy

price of the land is paid by the said authority. However, the possession of

the said land could not be taken because of stay Orders passed in the Writ

Petitions filed in this Court and certain proceedings filed before the

Appellate/Revisional authority under the Act. Said Petitions/challenges

were against the scheme of the Act. Therefore, the Respondents are not

blamable for not taking the possession of the land and frustrating the

purpose of the Principal Act. As such, there is no merit in the Petition and

Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7)           We have considered these submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates.

8)           A Controversy like in this Petition had come before this Court

in Voltas Limited & Anr. vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority &

Ors., reported in 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 746, cited by Mr. Balsara, the learned

                                                                        8/12
Manoj                                                      201-WP-5381-2005.doc

counsel. The question, therefore, that had arose for consideration was

“whether by reason of repeal of the Act, all proceedings under the principal

Act in regard to the petitioners’ land declared as surplus vacant land, have

abated and whether the land of the petitioner has reverted to the

petitioners.”

8.1)            On a conjoint reading of Section 10 of the Principal Act of 1976

and the Sections 3 & 4 of the Repeal Act of 1999, the Division Bench of this

Court, in paragraph 15 held that, Section 3 of the Repeal Act is a saving

clause and sub-Section 1 (a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of

any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act,

possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other

words, vesting of vacant lands under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the

Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been

taken over, is not saved. Because there is no provision in the Repeal Act

which divest: the State Government of the ownership of the land. The

purpose of enacting Section 3 (1) (a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect

vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands

that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations

made under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting

of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken

has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting

of those lands in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10

                                                                           9/12
Manoj                                                   201-WP-5381-2005.doc

of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been

repealed or made ineffective.

8.2)        On account of vesting of the land in the State Government, the

Competent Authority gets power to make order directing the person who is

in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land

to the State Government. If that person does not deliver the possession then

the Competent Authority becomes competent to take possession under sub-

section (6) of section 10 of the Principal Act. However, after 29.11.2007,

the provisions of sub-Section (5) and sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the

Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in

relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub-section (3)

of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not

been taken, the Competent Authority will not be entitled to make an order

directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to

the Government nor the Competent Authority would be entitled to take

possession under sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on

failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Consequently,

the State Government will not be in a position to determine the

compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make

payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of

the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of

Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and

                                                                       10/12
Manoj                                                    201-WP-5381-2005.doc

payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which

has been taken by the Government. Therefore, it is clear from the provisions

of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings

can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued

to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under

sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not

been taken before 29.11.2007.

8.3)        In view of the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench

allowed the said Petition thereby restraining the Respondent from taking

possession of the land.

9)          In the case in hand, on a careful reading of the Affidavit-in-

Reply filed by Respondent No.2, it is apparent that after dismissal of the

Civil Appeal No.3331 of 1982 on 24.06.1996 by the Apex Court, the

Constituted Attorney of the landowner M/s. Shantilal Mutha and Associates

had filed an Application on 05.08.1996 against the decision of the

Divisional Commissioner dated 08.07.1996 before the Hon’ble Minister,

Housing and Special Assistance Department. Therein, the Government had

issued a stay order dated 05.08.1996 until further orders against the

decision of the Divisional Commissioner. The landowner again filed an

Appeal under Section 34 of the Act on the order of the Commissioner, Pune

Division, on 09.08.1996. In that Appeal, on 20.08.1996 the Government

had issued stay against the Commissioner’s Order until further orders for

                                                                        11/12
Manoj                                                      201-WP-5381-2005.doc

handing over the land to the MHADA and rejection of the scheme under

Section 21 of the Act. It is not clarified in the Affidavit that, as to why the

possession of the said land could not be taken invoking Section 10 (6) of

the Act. Thus, it appears that even after dismissal of the Civil Appeal

No.3331 of 1982 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was sufficient time

with the Respondents to take possession of the said land. However, they

failed to do so. Thus, the facts of the case in hand and the facts in the case

of Voltas (supra) are similar to a large extent. Therefore, the said decision is

applicable to the case in hand.

10)          In view of the above, we pass following Order :-

10.1)        Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause a (iii).

10.2)        Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

10.3)        Consequently, Civil Application No.38 of 2022, does not survive

and is disposed off accordingly.



        (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)                        (A.S. GADKARI, J.)




                                                                          12/12