( 1 ) THE petitioner has raised a short issue. The petitioners are the joint owners of final Plot No. 221 admeasuring 2526. 50 sq. meters. The land falls in the revised draft development plan of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation which had come into force on 15th September, 1983. The petitioners are joint owners of the plot in question. At one point of time, the said land has been divided by the petitioners in accordance with their shares. The land in question in has been shown as reserved for the housing purposes of ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the Draft Development Plan. At one point of time, the Corporation initiated acquisition proceedings. However, vide communication dated 6. 10. 1988 the acquisition proceeding were withdrawn under Sec. 48 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. Since the land was reserved for the purpose of Ahmedabad Municipal corporation no, steps have been taken for use of the said land for the purpose for which it has been reserved. The petitioner desirous of sub-dividing the plan as per their share applied for necessary permission, which has been refused solely on the ground that land is shown to be reserved for the purpose of AMC vide impugned order dated 22nd January. 1997. It is further not in dispute that since 3rd December, 1997 the said draft development plan has lapsed and plot as such is not reserved for any purpose today.

( 2 ) THIS court has consistently taken the view that any premise for development or sub-division or for use within the permissible sphere of law as the owner of the land in exercise of its rights and enjoyment is not truncated merely because the land has been shown as reserved for the purpose in the master plan. The owner does not lose his right of owners/lip right to enjoy the property until the same is acquired and vested in the authority for the purpose or the authorities are able to show that it has taken steps to utilise the land for the purpose for which it has been reserved and is likely to utilise the same within a reasonable proximity of period. The fact that until the property is acquired and utilised by the authorities for the purpose for which it has been reserved the owner is entitled to use does not affect the right of the authority for whose purpose the land is reserved inasmuch as the owners use is subject to intended acquisition so long as the reservation subsists.

( 3 ) REFERENCE has been made to decision of this Court in Spl. C. A. No 2379 of 92 decided 27. 12. 1992. The question that arose for consideration before this court was whether the Corporation can without anything more and simple on the ground that land is reserved for a public purpose rejected the application for development. It has answered in the negative. The court opined considering provision of Sec. 20 of the Act of 76 that the said provision cannot be construed as debarring the owner from seeking the permission for development simply because the land is shown as reserved for public purpose before acquisition proceedings are commenced, whether by negotiation or by resorting to proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Aforesaid decision was challenged by way of LPA No. 55 of 1994 which was dismissed by Bench on 26. 7. 1994.

( 4 ) OWNERS rights to enjoy his land with the said risk are not jeopardized on making an expression of intention to acquire is amply clear from another Bench Decision of this court. Before a Division Bench of this Court in Surat Municipal Corporation vs. Bhikhabhai Mararbhat Patel, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 947, the question had arisen for consideration where owners of parcels of land falling within the Municipal limit of Surat municipal Corporation had applied for permission for sanctioning the building plans which the Corporation rejected on the ground that it was contemplating to acquire the land for public purpose and has requested Government for acquiring the land as they have failed to acquire the same by agreement. The Division Bench opined : tha