http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 13

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2000 of 2008

PETITIONER:

Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors

RESPONDENT:

State of Gujarat & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH:

S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9905 of 2007)

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the common

judgment and order dated 10-15th November, 2006 of the Gujarat

High Court at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1453 of 2005 and Miscellaneous

Civil application \026 for Review No. 3165 of 2006 dated 14th February,

2007; whereby the High Court dismissed the cross-objections filed by

the appellants in LPA No. 1453 of 2005. Essentially grievance in this

appeal pertains to the dismissal of cross objections preferred by the

appellants.

3. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976

(for short \021the said Act\022) came into force with effect from February 1st,

1978. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under

the provisions of the Act constituted Surat Urban Development

Authority (SUDA) which prepared a draft development plan whereby

the lands belonging to the appellants were proposed for designating

the use of the lands for residential purposes. The State Government

having considered the draft development plan submitted by SUDA

sanctioned the plan in the modified form on January 31, 1986 whereby

the appellants\022 lands in question were reserved for \023education complex

of South Gujarat University\024. The final development plan was

accordingly brought into force with effect from March 31, 1986.

Neither the Area Development Authority nor the Authority for whose

purpose land has been designated in the final Development Plan

initiated any steps to acquire the lands of the appellants. The

appellants having waited for a period of 10 years from the date of

coming into force of the final development plan got served a notice on

the Authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land within six

months from the date of the service of such notice. However, no steps

were taken by any of the authorities proposing to acquire the lands.

Instead SUDA in purported exercise of its power under Section 21 of

the Act sought to revise the development plan by reserving the lands

in question once again for education complex of South Gujarat

University.

4. The appellants challenged re-reservation of the lands for South

Gujarat University on various grounds which ultimately culminated in

the judgment of this court in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana

Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others . This court in clear and categorical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 13

terms laid down that Section 21 of the Act may impose statutory

obligations on the part of the State and the appropriate authority to

revise the development plan but under the grab of exercising the

power to revise the development plan \023the substantial right conferred

upon the owner of the land or the person interested therein\024 cannot be

taken away. It is observed :

\023 Para 38. 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 landowner under Section

22 of getting the land defreezed\005\005\005\024

5. The revised development plan submitted by SUDA was awaiting

the sanction of the State Government. The State Government in

exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of

clause (a) of Section 17(1) of the Act proposed modifications in the

draft revised development plan submitted by SUDA and proposed to

designate the