Bombay HC Bars Revival of Urban Land Ceiling Act Obligations

Judgment dated 16.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.15 of 206 of Suresh Devchand Shah and others  Vs.  State of MaharashtrWe have perused the record and have heard the
learned counsel for the parties. The short question that
arises for our consideration is whether, having regard to the
order dated 18th November, 2009, passed in Writ Petition
No.441 of 2009, the Respondents can maintain the
impugned communications and Mutation Entries in respect
of the said land.
9.
This Court, in its order dated 18th November, 2009,
had expressly recorded that exemption under Section 20 of
the ULC Act was deemed to have been withdrawn and
therefore the Respondents issued the Notification under
Section 10(1) of the ULC Act. The said order was passed
4 2014 (6) Mh.L.J. 829
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded on – 16/10/2026
Downloaded on – 19/10/2026 08:51:28
WP-15-2024-Judgment.doc
after considering the status of the Section 20 exemption,
the proceedings under Section 10 and, most importantly,
the Respondent’s admission in its affidavit-in-reply that
possession had not been taken before the Repeal Act. It is
in this background that this Court declared that “all further
proceedings in relation to the land”, which is the subject
matter of the Petition, had abated. The said order has
attained finality and will bind the Respondents and the
Petitioner. Therefore we cannot accept the Respondents
submission and dilute/ignore the consequences of the
expression “all further proceedings in relation to the land”.
It is settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat5 that when
a question of fact or law is decided between the parties in
one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either
because no appeal was filed or an appeal was dismissed,
neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding
5 (2013) 15 SCC 655
Uploaded on – 16/10/2026
Page 18 of 25
Downloaded on – 19/10/2026 08:51:28
WP-15-2024-Judgment.doc
between the same parties to canvass the matter again.
Similarly In Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board,
Peermade6 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
general principle underlying the doctrine of Res Judicata is
ultimately based on public policy. One important
consideration of public policy is that the decisions
pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be
final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate
authorities and a person should not be made to face the
same kind of litigation twice over, such process being
contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. The
Hon’ble Court further held that even where Section 11 of
CPC does not apply, the principle of Res Judicata has been
applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in
litigation. Thus, we are required to proceed on the basis
that the order dated 18th November, 2009 is correct and
binding on the Respondents.a and others