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 ... Interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Whether by reason of inaction on the part of the State and its authorities under the Town Planning Act to acquire the lands for a period of more than 10 years, in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Act and on their failure to do so the reservation/designation in respect of land in question would lapse - HELD THAT:- It is true that Section 21 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on the part of the State and the appropriate authorities to revise the development plan and for the said purpose Sections 9 to 20 ’so far as may be’ would be applicable thereto, but thereby the rights of the owners in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 are not taken away. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20, the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only because a draft revised plan is made, would automatically give rise to revival thereof. Section 20 does not manifest a legislative intent to curtail or take away the right acquired by a land-owner under Section 22 of getting the land defreezed. In the event the submission of the learned Solicitor General is accepted the same would completely render the provisions of Section 20(2) otiose and redundant. Sub-section (1) of Section 20, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for an enabling provision in terms whereof the State become entitled to acquire the land either by agreement or taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If by reason of a revised plan, any other area is sought to be brought within the purview of the development plan, evidently in relation thereto the State will be entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 20 but it will bear repetition to state that the same would not confer any other or further power upon the State to get the duration of designation of land, which has been lapsed, extended. What is contemplated under Section 21 is to meet the changed situation and contingencies which might not have been contemplated while preparing the first final development plan. The power of the State enumerated under sub-section (1) of Section 20 does not become ipso facto applicable in the event of issuance of a revised plan as the said provision has been specifically mentioned therein so that the State may use the same power in a changed situation. As the facts of the present case stand absolutely on a different footing and this Court in K.L. Gupta’s case [1967 (8) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT] was not called upon to answer the same, the same cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that by reason of Section 21 of the Act, the designation of the land although lapsed in terms of Section 20, the same would get automatically extended or revised once a revised plan is made. This Court in K.L. Gupta’s case merely held that the land which is reserved for ten years can be subjected to further reservation for any period till it is actually required for its town planning activities leading to revision of development plans from time to time. Therein, this Court did not negate the right of owners. Such a right of the land-owners, as noticed hereinbefore, has been specifically acknowledged. There is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be 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.