Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Gujarat High Court: In a petition seeking declaration of lapse of reservation over land reserved for a development plan road, the Single Judge Bench of Niral R. Mehta, J., held that revision proceedings under Section 21, Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (the Act) must be initiated within the prescribed 10-year period and cannot subsequently be invoked to defeat a landowner’s accrued right under Section 20(2). Observing that private land cannot remain under reservation indefinitely without acquisition, the Court declared that the reservation over the petitioner’s land, which had continued for nearly 5 decades without acquisition, had lapsed.
Background
The petitioner’s land at Village Nava Deesa, Banaskantha, was reserved for a 24 m development plan road under the development plan sanctioned in 30 November 1975. The reservation continued in the subsequent revised development plans. Despite the reservation continuing for nearly 5 decades, the land was never acquired. After serving a notice under Section 20(2) of the Act on 4 May 2022, the petitioner contended that neither acquisition nor acquisition proceedings were commenced within 6 months. Aggrieved by the continued reservation, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed.
The respondent authorities argued that successive revisions of the development plan under Section 21 kept the reservation alive and prevented the petitioner from invoking Section 20(2).
Issue
Whether revision proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, can be initiated after expiry of the statutory period so as to defeat a landowner’s accrued right to deemed lapse of reservation under Section 20(2)?
Analysis
The Court observed that Sections 9 to 19 of the Act constitute a comprehensive framework governing the preparation, publication and sanction of development plans. The preparation of a draft development plan is a statutory obligation of the Area Development Authority, with the State Government empowered to ensure compliance in case of default. The Court noted that the Act mandates public inspection, participation and consideration of objections before sanctioning, modifying or varying a development plan, thereby ensuring transparency and adherence to the prescribed procedural safeguards.
The Court observed that Section 20 provides the statutory mechanism for acquisition of land reserved under the final development plan and that Section 20(2) safeguards the rights of landowners by providing that where reserved land is neither acquired nor acquisition proceedings are commenced within 10 years of the final development plan coming into force, and no action is taken within 6 months of the statutory notice, the reservation or designation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law. The Court emphasised that the provision balances the planning authority’s power to reserve land for public purposes with the landowner’s right against indefinite reservation without acquisition.
The Court observed that Section 21 mandates revision of the final development plan at least once every 10 years from the date on which the final development plan came into force, following the same statutory procedure applicable to preparation of the original development plan, including publication of the draft plan, invitation and consideration of objections and suggestions, and sanction by the State Government. On a conjoint reading of Sections 20 and 21, the Court held that revision proceedings must be initiated within the prescribed 10-year period. Where such proceedings are validly initiated, the revised development plan supersedes the earlier plan and a fresh 10-year period under Section 20(2) begins. Once revision is validly initiated within the prescribed period, the procedure under Sections 9 to 20 applies afresh, enabling stakeholders to participate in the process, and upon sanction, the revised development plan supersedes the earlier plan, with a fresh 10-year period under Section 20(2) commencing thereafter.
The Court noted the significance of the expression “at least once in every 10 years” under Section 21, which mandates that revision proceedings must be initiated within the prescribed 10-year period and observed that any contrary interpretation would render the safeguard under Section 20(2) illusory by permitting the authority to indefinitely postpone acquisition through belated revision proceedings after the landowner’s statutory right had already accrued. The Court found that where revision proceedings are not initiated within the prescribed 10-year period, the landowner’s accrued right under Section 20(2) cannot be defeated by subsequently invoking Section 21. The Court observed that Sections 20 and 21 are complementary, with the authority’s power of revision being subject to the time-limit under Section 21. Thus, if there is neither acquisition of the land nor initiation of revision proceedings within the prescribed period of 10 years, and despite service of the statutory notice the authority fails to acquire the land or commence acquisition proceedings within 6 months, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law.
Summarising the statutory scheme of the Act, the Court observed that the Act prescribes a structured process for preparation, publication, consideration and sanction of development plans, with opportunities for public participation at every stage and noted that land reserved under a final development plan must be acquired in accordance with Section 20, failing which, if acquisition is not undertaken within 10 years and no steps are taken within 6 months of the landowner’s statutory notice, the reservation lapses by operation of law.
The Court observed that the applicability of Sections 20 and 21 depends on the facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be applied. It held that factors such as the date the final development plan came into force, expiry of the statutory 10-year period, initiation of acquisition or revision proceedings, service of notice under Section 20(2), steps taken within 6 months thereof, and fulfilment of the statutory conditions for deemed lapse are relevant in determining whether the reservation has lapsed. The Court clarified that these factors are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, and each case must be decided on the cumulative effect of the relevant facts and the sequence of statutory events.
The Court relied upon the undisputed chronology furnished by the respondents relating to the development plans, to determine whether the statutory timelines under the Act had been complied with, the Court found that the respondent authorities had failed to disclose the exact dates on which revision proceedings under Section 21 were initiated despite a specific direction, warranting an adverse inference against them. The Court noted that both the first and second revision processes were initiated only after expiry of the statutory 10-year period and were completed after considerable delay. Holding that the authorities had failed to exercise their statutory powers within the prescribed time, the Court observed that belated revision proceedings could not defeat the petitioner’s accrued right under Section 20(2). The Court noted that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted reflects complete administrative lethargy and indifference to the mandate of the Act and remarked that the prolonged administrative delay had kept the petitioner’s land under reservation for nearly 5 decades without acquisition, contrary to the scheme and mandate of the Act. The Court therefore, noted that since no revision proceedings were initiated within 10 years from the original development plan coming into force on 30 November 1975, any subsequent exercise of power under Section 21 could not be recognised as a valid exercise of statutory power so as to defeat the petitioner’s accrued right under Section 20(2).
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Court declared that the continued reservation of the petitioner’s land for nearly 50 years was contrary to the scheme of the Act. It observed that since the authorities neither acquired the land nor initiated revision proceedings within the statutory period, the petitioner’s accrued right under Section 20(2) could not be defeated by belated revision proceedings. As the petitioner had served the statutory notice on 4 May 2022 and no acquisition proceedings were commenced within 6 months thereafter, the Court held that the legal fiction under Section 20(2) stood attracted, resulting in deemed lapse of the reservation.
[Ajay Kumar Babulal Gehlot v. State of Gujarat, C/SCA/9037/2023, decided on 29-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Het N Shah, SP Majumdar
For the respondent: Sahil B. Trivedi, AGP, Mehul H Rathod
