http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 14

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 8003 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Bhavnagar University

RESPONDENT:

Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2002

BENCH:

CJI, K. G. Balakrishnan & S.B. Sinha.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.1539, 1540, 1541 of 2001 and

Civil Appeal Nos. 8004-8012 2002

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.1636-1644 of 2001]

S.B. SINHA, J :

Leave granted in special leave petitions.

This batch of appeals arising out of common Judgment and Order of the

Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in SCA Nos. 10108/94, 4427/92, 4733/92,

4847/92, 3537/95, 8882/99, 8888/99, 6461/96 and 6519/98 involving the question

as regard to interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and

Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the ’Said Act’),

were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

The State of Gujarat in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section

20 of the said Act reserved certain areas of which the respondents herein amongst

others are the owners

On or about 3.3.1986 a development plan was finally published in terms of

the provisions of the said Act, and the period of 10 years therefrom lapsed on

2.3.1996. 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 short question which arises for consideration in these matters is as to

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 Lan

ection 20 of the Act and on their failure to do so the reservation/designation in

respect of land in question would lapse.

Per contra the contention of the Appellant was that the provisions of Section

20(2) of the Act although enables service of notice by land owners for acquisition

within six moths from the expiry of 10 years from the date of final development plan

but the same would not come into operation when the final development plan is in

the process of revision under Section 21 of the said Act read with sub-section 1 of

Section 20 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 14

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.

The appellants were represented by Mr. Kirit N. Rawal, Solicitor General and

Mr. T.R. Adhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the Gujarat University

and Mr. Tanna for the South Gujarat University. The contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant was that having regard to the scope and purport of the said

Act, the High Court must be held to have erred in so far as it failed to take into

consideration that the objects of an integrated, incorporated and interdependent

development plan, cannot be fully achieved within a period of 10 years and in that

view of the matter when steps are taken for revision of the final development plan,

the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 20 would get automatically

extended. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on K.L. Gupta & Ors. v.

The Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors, [(1968) 1 SCR 274], Ahmedabad

Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 482];

Murari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 15].

On the other hand, the submissions of learned counsel for the re