Land reserved under town planning scheme and "defreezing" rights u/s 20(2) upheld; lapsed reservation not revived.

Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was construed to confer an enforceable right on a landowner to secure lapse of reservation/designation where the State or appropriate authority fails to acquire the land within the statutory period; this "defreezing" right is not curtailed by Section 21. Although Section 21 mandates revision of the development plan and applies Sections 9-20 "so far as may be," it does not permit automatic revival or extension of a lapsed designation merely upon publication of a draft revised plan, as that would render Section 20(2) otiose. A revised plan may enable acquisition for newly included areas under Section 20(1), but cannot reimpose lapsed reservation. Appeals dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, upon an owner's service of notice under Section 20(2) after the ten-year period following the coming into force of a final development plan, the designation/reservation of land is deemed to have lapsed where the State/authorities have not taken steps to acquire the land, notwithstanding that a draft or revised development plan under Section 21 is in the offing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme comprises Sections 12, 17, 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and contemplates reservation/designation of land for public purposes subject to acquisition within ten years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force. Section 20(2) creates a legal fiction that, if the land is not acquired by agreement within ten years or if acquisition proceedings are not commenced within that period, an owner may serve a notice and, if acquisition does not occur within six months of that notice, the designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. Section 21 requires revision of the development plan at least once in ten years and makes Sections 920 applicable to revision "so far as may be". The phrase "so far as may be" limits the applicability of procedural provisions to what is reasonably possible and does not extend or revive substantive rights that have been conferred by express provisions. The ten-year temporal limitation and the six-month consequence for inaction in Section 20(2) operate imperatively to protect owner rights; a mere issuance or preparation of a draft revised plan under Section 21 does not by itself suspend or extend the time limits or revive a designation that has lapsed under Section 20(2). The State retains independent powers of acquisition under general law, but those general powers do not nullify the statutory consequence of lapse created by Section 20(2).

Conclusion: Issue (i) is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents; designation/reservation of land deemed to have lapsed under Section 20(2) is not extended or revived solely by the issuance or drafting of a revised development plan under Section 21.

---