IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

Headnote:Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976-Sections 20 and 21-Acquisition of land and Revision of development plan-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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite service of notice, the same stood de-reserved/de-designated in view of issuance of draft revised plan under Section 21 thereof, the term of 10 years stood extended? High Court holding that by the issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of Section 20(2) of the Act-Whether correct? (Yes)-Result-Appeals dismissed-Case law referred.
       Held : 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. The question, however, is as to whether only because the provision of Section 20 has been referred to therein; would it mean that thereby the Legislature contemplated that the time of ten years specified by the Legislature for the purpose of acquisition of the land would get automatically extended? The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. Following the principle of interpretation that all words must be given its full effect, we must also give full effect to the words so far as may be" applied to such revision. The said words indicate the intention of the Legislature to the effect that by providing revision of final development plan from time to time and at least once in ten years, only the procedure or preparation thereof as provided therein, is required to be followed. Such procedural requirements must be followed so far as it is reasonably possible. Section 21 of the Act, in our opinion, does not and cannot mean that the substantial right conferred upon the owner of the land or the person interested therein shall be taken away. It is not and cannot be the intention of the Legislature that what is given by one hand should be taken away by the other. 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. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well-settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four-corners thereof. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41)
       For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the findings of the High Court. (Para 61)
       Held finally : For the aforementioned reasons, 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. (Para 63)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. 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.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

4. 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.

5. 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite service of notice; the same stood de-reserved/de-designated in view of issuance of draft revised plan under Section 21 thereof, the term of 10 years stood extended?.

7. The contention of the respondents before the High Court was that on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, it would appear that the appellants were under a statutory obligation to take steps for acquisition of land on receipt of the requisite notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act and on their failure to do so the reservation/designation in respect of land in question would lapse.

8. 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 months 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.

9. 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.

10. 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].

11. On the other hand, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents led

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1187

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court was right in coming to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.