2002 (12) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Land Acquisition Rules

Bhavnagar University Versus Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the provisions of Section 20(2) are mandatory and not affected by the revision process ... A revised Development plan however came into being on 20th February, 1996. It is not in dispute that respondents who claim ownership of the lands in question issued notices in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the said Act, asking the State Government to acquire the properties in terms thereof. - The High Court upon taking into consideration the provisions of the said Act and upon consideration of the rival contentions raised therein came to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Said Act. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.2. Impact of inaction by the State in acquiring land within the specified period.3. Whether the revised development plan affects the period specified in Section 20(2).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976:The core question was the interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Section 20(2) allows landowners to serve notice to the State to acquire the land if it is not acquired within ten years from the final development plan's publication. If the State fails to acquire the land within six months of the notice, the reservation or designation of the land lapses. Section 21 mandates the revision of the development plan every ten years, with the procedures of Sections 9 to 20 applying to such revisions 'so far as may be.'2. Impact of inaction by the State in acquiring land within the specified period:The State of Gujarat reserved certain areas under Section 20 of the Act, but failed to acquire them within ten years from the final development plan's publication on 3.3.1986, which lapsed on 2.3.1996. The respondents, who are the landowners, issued notices under Section 20(2) for the State to acquire the land. The State argued that the revision process under Section 21 should extend the period specified in Section 20(2). However, the High Court and the Supreme Court concluded that the issuance of a draft revised plan does not affect the application of Section 20(2). The legal fiction created by Section 20(2) must be given full effect, meaning that if the State does not act within the specified period, the reservation lapses.3. Whether the revised development plan affects the period specified in Section 20(2):The appellants contended that the period specified in Section 20(2) should be extended when the final development plan is under revision per Section 21. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 21 does not intend to curtail or take away the right conferred upon the landowner by Section 20(2). The words 'so far as may be' in Section 21 indicate that the procedural requirements for revising the development plan must be followed as reasonably possible, but do not extend the ten-year period for land acquisition specified in Section 20(2). The Court emphasized that the statutory interdict on the use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed and that the State must act within the specified period or lose the designation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the provisions of Section 20(2) are mandatory and not affected by the revision process under Section 21. The landowners' right to have the land designation lapse if not acquired within the specified period remains intact. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.