2002 (12) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Designation/reservation deemed to have lapsed - acquisition after ten years and notice within six months - revision of development plan 'so far as may be' - mandatory consequence for statutory inaction - legal fiction created by statutory deeming - power of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act preservedDesignation/reservation deemed to have lapsed - acquisition after ten years and notice within six months - revision of development plan 'so far as may be' - mandatory consequence for statutory inaction - Whether designation/reservation of land under Section 20(2) lapses where, after ten years from coming into force of the final development plan, the owner serves notice and no acquisition or steps are taken within six months, notwithstanding that a draft revised development plan under Section 21 is in process. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Sections 20 and 21 must be read together but giving effect to each provision and the qualifying words 'so far as may be' in Section 21. Section 20(2) creates a statutory legal fiction that, if the land is not acquired by agreement within ten years or acquisition proceedings are not commenced and the owner serves notice, and no acquisition or steps are taken within six months, the designation is deemed to have lapsed. Section 21 requires procedural compliance for revision 'so far as may be' but does not extinguish or suspend the substantive right conferred on the owner by Section 20(2). Accepting the appellant's contention that a draft or revised plan automatically extends the ten-year period would render Section 20(2) otiose; the statutory consequence for inaction is imperative where expressly provided. The Court emphasised that procedural powers under Section 21 apply to revision to the extent reasonably possible and do not revive a designation already deemed to have lapsed. The State, however, continues to retain its general power of eminent domain and may still acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act notwithstanding lapse under Section 20(2). On these grounds the High Court's conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan does not bar application of Section 20(2) was upheld. [Paras 36, 37, 38, 41, 60]Designation/reservation under Section 20(2) lapses if, after ten years and service of notice by the owner, no acquisition or proceedings are commenced within six months; a draft or revised plan under Section 21 does not automatically prevent that lapse.Final Conclusion: Appeals dismissed; the High Court's conclusion that issuance of a draft revised development plan does not preclude the operation of Section 20(2) was affirmed; no order as to costs. 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.