- (1.) The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under: (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken thereunder (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999 (3) Whether in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904: (a) the order of exemption including all its terms and conditions under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can be continued and enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act; (b) all remedies and proceedings in respect of the order of exemption including all its terms and conditions may be instituted, continued and enforced (4) Whether in view of the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repeal Act, the Government of Maharashtra can: (a) recall/ cancel/ modify the exemption order granted either under Section 20 of the Principal Act; (b) enforce circulars for implementation of exemption orders issued under Section 20 of the Principal Act prior to the repeal of the Principal Act; (c) acquire the land by issuing notification under Section 10(3) of the Principal Act; and (d) take any action of whatsoever nature on account of noncompliance/breach of exemption order issued under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act (5) Whether, the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vithabai Bama Bhandari v/s State of Maharashtra and another, 2009 3 BCR 663 (Writ Petition No.4241/2008 decided on 31st March/ 16th April, 2009) and Damodar Laxman Navare and others v/s State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.6300/2009 dated 08 th July, 2010 sets out the correct legal position as regards the ambit and scope of Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 or whether, the view taken in Mira Bhayandar Builders and Developers Welfare Association v/s the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration and others in Writ Petition No.5745/2009 dated 27 th August, 2009 to the contrary should be held to be laying down the correct principle of law
(2.) Since both sides have canvassed arguments on legal issues, in order to appreciate them a few facts are required to be noted. We take the facts from a lead case, namely, Writ Petition No.9872/2010. That is a Writ Petition which has been filed by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and its various Units. These are associations established to promote the housing and real estate industry. The Writ Petition is filed in the interest of members of these Associations and real estate industry and in the circumstances which are set out in paragraph 4 of the memo of Writ Petition.
(3.) It is the case of the Petitioners that the State of Maharashtra and Competent Authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "THE PRINCIPAL ACT") continue to enforce and apply the provisions thereof despite enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "THE REPEAL ACT"). The Repeal Act has been brought into effect and is in force in the State of Maharashtra from 29.11.2007.;