JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J Heard Shri R.R. Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Addl.G.P. for respondents. Considering the controversy involved and by their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioners claim that after repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 29.11.2007, the lands earlier declared surplus, but, not taken into possession, are excluded and saved from that enactment. Petitioners claim that even today they continue in possession. 3. Along with Pursis, petitioners have placed on record an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 30.07.2016. It appears that after coming into force of this Act, as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a time bound program was framed on 12.05.2010 and as per that program, the Divisional Commissioner has completed the exercise and passed that order. The orders shows that possession of petitioners land was not taken before 29.11.2007. 4. Verification of original records show that notice under Section 10[3] of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was issued on 01.11.2007; Notice under Section 10[5] was issued on 05.11.2007. As per that notice, petitioners were to be informed that possession of their lands was to be taken on a particular date and therefore, they should remain present on the spot. Date scheduled for possession is left blank in this notice. Panchnama is prepared allegedly on 14.11.2007 on spot in presence of 2 witnesses mentioning that possession of lands of petitioners was taken. It is also recorded that petitioners have refused to sign. There is no proof of service of Section 10[5] notice upon petitioners or then of service of said panchnama demonstrating taken of exparte possession, upon them. 5. In this situation, we have no hesitation to accept the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 30.07.2016. 6. It is therefore, apparent that possession of lands of petitioners i.e. Survey No.249, admeasuring 33104.83 sq. mtrs. Of village Kandri (Guj), was never taken and therefore, the lands are not subject to provisions of the 1976 Act. Accordingly, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (I). Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.