Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 269 (GUJ)

TARABEN NARANDAS v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2013-05-07

HARSHA DEVANI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:- (8) The petitioners, therefore, pray that: (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned entry made in Column 16 (Remarks) regarding continuation of reservation for SUDA of the questioned land as incorporated in annexure “L” and be further pleased to hold and declare that continuation of reservation of S.Nos.46/1 and 88 of village Bhatar, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat for SUDA in the revised development plan sanctioned on 2.9.2004 vide notification at annexure “H” is illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary and be further pleased to issue directions to SUDA to permit the petitioners to develop T.P. Nos. 30 and 63 of T.P.S. No.27 of village Bhatar Majura; 8(A-1) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the Notification under section 17 of the Town Planning Act showing the reservation of the lands in question of the petitioners in the final development plan sanctioned by the Government under section 17(1) of the Act without complying with the provisions of section 17(2) regarding satisfaction inspite of the fact that the said lands were shown in the residential zone in the preliminary notification dtd.17/5/01 is patently bad and illegal; 8(A-2) It may further be declared that the transfer of the said reservation in the draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar Majura and showing the reservation as having been continued in the remarks column in the B form is also patently bad and illegal and void and the authorities may be directed not to give effect to the transferred reservation in the sanction draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar Majura while finalizing the preliminary scheme under the Town Planning Act on the basis of such a reservation being shown in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar Majura. Your Lordships may, therefore, issue appropriate writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in this regard. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of lands bearing Survey No.46/1 admeasuring 2047 square metres and Survey No.88 admeasuring 3541 square metres situated in Bhatar village, taluka Choryasi, district Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the subject lands”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of lands bearing Survey No.46/1 admeasuring 2047 square metres and Survey No.88 admeasuring 3541 square metres situated in Bhatar village, taluka Choryasi, district Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the subject lands”). Village Bhatar was included in the development area of Surat Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “SUDA”). SUDA made a development plan which came to be sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat under the provisions of section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Town Planning Act”). Prior thereto, the draft development plan prepared by SUDA was published on or about 7th February, 1980 wherein the subject lands were reserved under the head “for commercial purpose for SUDA”. Such reservation made in the draft development plan continued as reserved for the same purpose in the final development plan sanctioned on 3rd January, 1986 which came into force on 3rd March, 1986. Pursuant to the reservation of the subject land, a notification came to be issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the subject lands which was followed by a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government ultimately, had withdrawn the said acquisition and released the lands from acquisition. A communication dated 29th November, 1988 came to be issued to the petitioners by the authority in this regard. The Assistant Collector, Choryasi Prant also informed the petitioners by a communication dated 12th December, 1988 that the subject lands had been released from acquisition by a decision taken by the Government. Subsequently, SUDA undertook the exercise of revising the development plan under section 21 of the Town Planning Act. On 26th September, 1997, SUDA submitted the draft development plan to the Government for obtaining sanction for revised development plan. In the revised development plan also, the subject lands were reserved under the head “for commercial purpose for SUDA”. An entry viz., C-24 came to be made in this behalf in the draft development plan. During the pendency and approval of the development plan by the Government, SUDA proposed modification in the draft development plan whereby the reservation of the subject lands was dropped. An entry viz., C-24 came to be made in this behalf in the draft development plan. During the pendency and approval of the development plan by the Government, SUDA proposed modification in the draft development plan whereby the reservation of the subject lands was dropped. The Government issued a notification dated 17th May, 2001 inviting objections against the proposed modification and suggestions to be made to SUDA in the revised development plan. In the said notification, item No.176 was in respect of deletion of entry of “reservation for commercial purpose for SUDA” and designation of the subject lands as “residential lands” under section 12(2)(a) of the Town Planning Act. Since the petitioners’ land was sought to be released from reservation, there was no question of the petitioners submitting any objections against the notification of SUDA. Vide notification issued on 2nd September, 2004, the Government finally sanctioned the development plan submitted by SUDA wherein the Government did not approve the modification mentioned in Item No.176 and ultimately the subject lands were continued in reservation for commercial purpose of SUDA. Thereafter, the Government of Gujarat declared its intention to frame Town Planning Scheme No.27 (Bhatar Majura) (hereinafter referred to as “the Town Planning Scheme”). SUDA submitted the draft Town Planning Scheme to the Government which came to be published vide a notification dated 7th September, 1999 wherein it was proposed to allot final plot of 2058 square metres against the land bearing Survey No.88. Similarly, upon reconstitution of Survey No.46/1, the petitioners were allotted land admeasuring 874 square metres against Survey No.46/1. In part plans (Annexure ‘J’ and ‘K’ to the petition), there is no reference regarding any reservation of the subject lands but the final plots are allotted to the original owners (the petitioners). In Column 16 of Form ‘L’, it is observed that the ownership in final plot will be as per the share of the original owners in the original land. In Column No.16, there is also reference to continuation of reservation of the subject lands as per entry C-31 referred to in the finally sanctioned development plan. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands are kept under reservation since 1986 and that continuation of the reservation is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and malafide. The petitioners, therefore, made several representations in this regard to the respondent authorities; however, there was no response thereto. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands are kept under reservation since 1986 and that continuation of the reservation is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and malafide. The petitioners, therefore, made several representations in this regard to the respondent authorities; however, there was no response thereto. Thereafter, the petitioners issued a notice dated 13th October, 2007 under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act to the respondent authorities; however, the subject lands were neither sought to be acquired by consent nor were any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act initiated in this regard. Being aggrieved by the continued reservation of the subject lands by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove. 4. Mrs. Ketty Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the provisions of the Town Planning Act and more particularly, sub-section (2) of section 20 thereof to submit that if the land which is referred to in sub-section (1) thereof namely, land which is reserved for any purpose in the final development plan, is not acquired by agreement within a period of ten years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan or if proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a notice on the authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land and if within six months from the date of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, the designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. In the present case, the final development plan came into force on 3rd March, 1986 and as such, after a period of ten years therefrom, it was open for the petitioners to issue notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act to the respondents calling upon them to acquire such lands within the time limit stipulated under sub-section (2) of section 20 failing which the reservation of the subject lands would stand lapsed. It was pointed out that the petitioners had issued notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act on 13th October, 2007. It was pointed out that the petitioners had issued notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act on 13th October, 2007. However, pursuant thereto, no steps had been taken by the respondent authorities for acquiring the subject lands within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 20. Under the circumstances, the reservation of the subject lands is deemed to have lapsed and it is permissible for the petitioners to utilise the same in any manner as they please. In support of such submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., 2003 (2) SCC 111 : [2003 (2) GLR 1154 (SC)]. 4.1. Mrs. Mehta further drew the attention of the court to the provisions of section 40 of the Town Planning Act to submit that under sub-section (1) thereof, the appropriate authority is required to make one or more town planning schemes for the development area or any part thereof, regard being had to the proposals in the final development plan, if any. Inviting attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4, it was pointed out that at the time of making the draft town planning scheme, the Final Development Plan (SUDA – 1986) was in force, therefore, the respondent Corporation has continued the reservation upon the land in question in Draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 (Bhatar – Majura). Attention was also invited to the affidavit-in-reply filed by SUDA and more particularly, the contents of paragraph 5 thereof, wherein it has been stated that the Town Planning Officer has also given final plot number to the land in question after considering the development plan roads passing through the area after careful consideration of reservation of the land under the revised development plan of Surat Urban Development Authority. It was submitted that the transfer of the said reservation in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar -Majura and showing the reservation of the subject lands as being reserved for C-31 commercial purpose for SUDA in the remarks column in ‘B’ form is totally bad, illegal and void and the authorities should be directed not to give effect to the transferred reservation in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar – Majura while finalising the preliminary scheme under the Town Planning Act on the basis of such reservation being shown in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.27 of Bhatar Majura. It was argued that in any view of the matter, the reservation has lapsed and therefore there was no question of continuing the reservation in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 which has been submitted to the Government for sanction. It was, accordingly, urged that the reservation of the subject lands is deemed to have lapsed in the light of the above. 5. Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. Prashant Desai, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that for lapsing of reservation, notice as envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 20 is a sine qua non. It was submitted that in the present case, the notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 has been issued on 13th October, 2007. It was pointed out that the first development plan came to be finalised in 1986 and the same ended in 1996. Thereafter, the subject lands were reserved for commercial purpose for SUDA in the development plan of SUDA which was sanctioned by the Government on 3rd January, 1986 and came into force on 3rd March, 1986. Such reservation was continued in the revised development plan sanctioned in 2007. It was submitted that under the circumstances, a period of ten years has not lapsed since the sanctioning of the final development plan and as such, the notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act is premature, inasmuch as, the ten year period after which the petitioners would be entitled to issue notice for acquisition of the subject lands would begin only in 2014. It was submitted that the petitioners were required to give notice after the year 1996 before the revised final development plan came to be sanctioned, however, in the present case, the petitioners have issued the notice after the sanctioning of the final development plan and as such, the contention that the reservation is deemed to have lapsed does not merit acceptance. It was argued that the reservation would lapse only if the notice under section 20(2) had been issued before the new final development plan was sanctioned by the State Government. However, no notice was issued at the relevant time and in the meantime, in 2004, once again revised final development plan came to be sanctioned where the reservation has been continued, however, the reservation of 2004 has not been challenged by the petitioners and the same continues. It was submitted that the petitioners having failed to issue notice prior to the issuance of revised final development plan, are deemed to have waived their right to give notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act. The learned counsel further contended that the revised development plan sanctioned on 2nd September, 2004 has not been challenged by the petitioners wherein the reservation of the subject lands for the purposes of SUDA had been continued. It was accordingly urged that the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – SUDA adopted the submissions advanced by the learned senior advocate and has placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. It was further submitted that SUDA still requires the subject lands for the purpose for which it is designated. 7. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, supported the submissions made by Mr. Desai. It was reiterated that the revised development plan came to be sanctioned on 2nd September, 2004 whereas the notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 came to be issued in the year 2007, which is subsequent to the sanctioning of the revised development plan. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the revised development plan has come into force, the statutory period of ten years would come to an end in the year 2014. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the revised development plan has come into force, the statutory period of ten years would come to an end in the year 2014. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioners were required to issue notice when the first development plan had lapsed, however, no notice was issued at the relevant time and as such, the contention that the reservation has lapsed is required to be rejected. 8. In rejoinder, Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the court to the provisions of section 20 of the Town Planning Act to submit that the same imposes an obligation upon the statutory authority to acquire the land. It was submitted that sub-section (2) of section 20 does not provide for any period for issuance of notice after the period of ten years has elapsed and that such notice can be issued at any time after ten years. The obligation on the statutory body to acquire the lands which are put under reservation continues and at any time after ten years of the first reservation, the owner had a right to issue notice under sub-section (2) of section 20. It was submitted that the vested right of the owner of the land under sub-section (2) of section 20 cannot be taken away by framing a revised development plan. Thus, after 1996 when the period of ten years after the coming into force of the development plan was over, it was permissible for the petitioners to give notice at any point of time. If upon issuance of such notice, the respondent authorities do not acquire the land, the reservation would be deemed to have lapsed. It was pointed out that the subject lands have been placed under reservation in the draft town planning scheme only because there was a reservation in the development plan. The Town Planning Scheme is subject to the proposals of the final development plan and if the reservation under the final development plan lapses, the reservation would normally lapse. It was submitted that if the contention sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent authorities were to be accepted, sub-section (2) of section 20 would be rendered nugatory. The Town Planning Scheme is subject to the proposals of the final development plan and if the reservation under the final development plan lapses, the reservation would normally lapse. It was submitted that if the contention sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent authorities were to be accepted, sub-section (2) of section 20 would be rendered nugatory. It was urged that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Palitana Sugar Mills (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, the petition deserves to be allowed by following the said decision. 9. The facts are not in dispute. The draft development plan came to be prepared by SUDA on 7th February, 1980 wherein the subject lands were reserved for “commercial purpose for SUDA”. The reservation was continued for the same purpose in the final development plan which was sanctioned on 3rd January, 1986 and came into force on 3rd March, 1986. Subsequent thereto, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published which was followed by a declaration under section 6 of the said Act. However, subsequently, the acquisition came to be withdrawn which was communicated to the petitioners by a communication dated 29th November, 1988. Thereafter, revised development plan came to be submitted by SUDA on 16th September, 1997 wherein the subject lands were reserved for commercial purpose of SUDA vide Entry No.C-24 in the draft development plan. Pending approval by the State Government, SUDA issued notification for modification of draft development plan whereby the reservation of the subject lands was dropped. The Government issued notification dated 17th May, 2001 inviting objections against the proposed modification and the suggestions made by SUDA in the revised development plan. In the said notification, item No.176 was in respect of deletion of entry of “reservation for commercial purpose for SUDA” and designating the subject lands as “residential lands” under section 12(2)(a) of the Town Planning Act. Since the petitioners’ lands were sought to be released from reservation, the petitioners had no reason to submit objections against the said notification. However, while sanctioning the development plan vide notification dated 2nd September, 2004, the Government continued the reservation of the subject lands and accordingly, in the final development plan the petitioners’ lands were shown to be reserved for the commercial purpose of SUDA. However, while sanctioning the development plan vide notification dated 2nd September, 2004, the Government continued the reservation of the subject lands and accordingly, in the final development plan the petitioners’ lands were shown to be reserved for the commercial purpose of SUDA. In the interregnum, intention to frame Town Planning Scheme was declared and Draft Town Planning Scheme came to be published vide notification dated 7th September, 1999 wherein also, the subject lands were reserved for commercial purpose of SUDA. 10. Evidently, therefore, right from the year 1986, till date, the subject lands have been continued under reservation for the commercial purpose of SUDA. It is also an accepted position that the petitioners issued notice dated 13th October, 2007 under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act calling upon the respondent authorities to acquire the subject lands for the purpose for which they were reserved. However, no steps came to be taken pursuant thereto for acquisition of the subject lands within a period of six months from the date of service of such notice. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, the sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether on account of failure on the part of the respondents in acquiring the subject land or taking steps for acquisition thereof within a period of six months from the date of service of the notice dated 13th October, 2007 issued by the petitioners under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, the reservation of the subject lands for the commercial purpose of SUDA is deemed to have lapsed. This is required to be viewed in the light of the contention raised by the respondents that prior to the service of notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, the revised final development plan had been sanctioned and therefore, the period of ten years mentioned in sub-section (2) would commence from the date of sanctioning such revised final development plan. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be appropriate to refer to section 20 of the Town Planning Act which reads thus: 20. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be appropriate to refer to section 20 of the Town Planning Act which reads thus: 20. Acquisition of land.-(1) The area development authority or any other authority for whose purpose land is designated in the final development plan for any purpose specified in clause (b), clause (d), clause (f), clause (k), clause (n) or clause (o) of sub-section (2) of section 12, may acquire the land either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) If the land referred to in sub-section (1) is not acquired by agreement within a period of ten years from the date of the coming into force of the final development plan or if proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 I of 1894, are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a notice on the authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land and if within six months from the date of service of such notice the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisitions, the designation of the land as aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, on a plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, it is more clear that what the same envisages is that after a period of ten years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan, the owner or any person interested in the land may issue a notice on the concerned authority requiring it to acquire the land and if pursuant to such notice, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within a period of six months from the date of service of such notice, the designation of the land would be deemed to have lapsed. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (supra) while construing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act has held thus: “31. Whereas in terms of Secs. 12 and 17 of the said Act, the reservation and designation have been provided, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20 thereof only enables the authorities to acquire the land designated or reserved for the purpose specifically mentioned in clauses (b) and (n) of sub-sec. Whereas in terms of Secs. 12 and 17 of the said Act, the reservation and designation have been provided, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20 thereof only enables the authorities to acquire the land designated or reserved for the purpose specifically mentioned in clauses (b) and (n) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 as also other clauses specified therefore either by acquisition or agreement or in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20 is merely an enabling provision. 32. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec.20, however, carves out an exception to the exercise of powers by the State as regards acquisition of the land for the purpose of carrying out the development of the area in the manner provided for therein; a bare reading whereof leaves no manner of doubt that in the event the land referred to under sub-sec (1) of Sec.20 thereof is not acquired or proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced and further, in the event an owner or a person interested in the land serves a notice in the manner specified therein, certain consequences ensue, namely, the designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. A legal fiction, therefore, has been created in the said provision. 34. The relevant provisions of the Act are absolutely clear, unambiguous and implicit. A plain meaning of the said provisions, in our considered view, would lead to only one conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued by the owner of the land or other person interested therein asking the authority to acquire the land upon expiry of the period specified therein viz., ten years from the date of issuance of final development plan and in the event pursuant to or in furtherance thereof no action for acquisition thereof is taken, the designation shall lapse. 36. The question, however, is as to whether only because the provision of Sec.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 their full effect, we must also give full effect to the words so far as may be applied to such revision. 37. The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. Following the principle of interpretation that all words must be given their full effect, we must also give full effect to the words so far as may be applied to such revision. 37. The said words indicate the intention of the legislature to the effect that by providing revision of final development plan from time to time 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. 38. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.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 Sec. 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 Sec. 20(2) otiose and redundant. 39. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 20, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for an enabling provision in terms whereof the State become entitled to acquire the land either by agreement or by 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-sec. (1) of Sec. 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 Sec.21 is to meet the changed situation and contingencies which might not have been contemplated while preparing the first final development plan. What is contemplated under Sec.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-sec. (1) of Sec. 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. 40. 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. 41. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Despite statutory lapse of designation of the land, the State is not denuded of its power of eminent domain under the general law, namely, the Land Acquisition Act in the event an exigency arises therefor. 42. We are not oblivious of the law that when a public functionary is required to do a certain thing within a specified time, the same is ordinarily directory but it is equally well-settled that when consequence for inaction on the part of the statutory authorities within such specified time is expressly provided, it must be held to be imperative.” 13. The above referred decision of the Supreme Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as after the expiry of the period specified under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, viz., ten years from the date of issuance of the final development plan the petitioners have served notice dated 13th October, 2007 under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act asking the authorities to acquire the subject land. However, despite such notice being served upon the respondent authorities, no action for acquisition thereof is taken pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. Consequently, the designation of the subject lands as reserved for commercial purpose for SUDA stands lapsed. However, despite such notice being served upon the respondent authorities, no action for acquisition thereof is taken pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. Consequently, the designation of the subject lands as reserved for commercial purpose for SUDA stands lapsed. In view of the mandate of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, the respondents were required to acquire the subject lands or to commence steps for acquisition thereof within a period of six months from the date of service of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 20. The respondents having failed to do so, by operation of law the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. 14. The contention that in view of the fact that a revised final development plan has been sanctioned in the year 2004, the period of ten years would expire only in the year 2014 deserves to be stated only to be rejected. The Supreme Court in the above referred decision has, while considering the question as to whether only because the provision of section 20 has been referred to in section 21, would it mean that the legislature contemplated that the time of ten years specified by the legislature for the purpose of acquisition of land would get automatically extended, clearly held that the answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. It was held that 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 Town Planning Act 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 sought to be given by one hand should be taken away by the other. It was held that 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. It was held that 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. The court was of the view that section 20 does not manifest a legislative intent to curtail or take away the right acquired by a landowner under section 20(2) of getting the land defreezed. It was further held that sub-section (1) of section 20 provides for an enabling provision in terms whereof the State becomes entitled to acquire the land either by agreement or by 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 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. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the said decision, once the duration of designation lapses, there is no power vested in the State Government to extend the same and a right accrues to the landowner to issue notice under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act anytime thereafter to the concerned authority to acquire the land, and on failure to acquire the land or to commence steps to acquire the land, by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. 15. At this stage it may also be appropriate to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat which was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the above referred decision and came to be confirmed. 15. At this stage it may also be appropriate to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat which was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the above referred decision and came to be confirmed. Before the court, it had been contended on behalf of the respondents that though the period of ten years provided for acquisition of the land reserved under section 20(1) had long back expired and acquisition was also not made within six months’ notice period, nonetheless, the reservation of the land would not lapse as the concerned development authority had issued a draft revised plan under section 21 of the Act for sanction of the State Government. The provisions of section 20(2), therefore, stand arrested and the reservation or designation of the land for the purpose specified would not lapse. The further argument advanced was, once there is a proposal for revision of development plan and action is taken under sections 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the Act, section 20(2) cannot be availed of. It can be availed of only on the expiry of ten years from the date of sanction of the revised development plan. Thus, the controversy before this High Court as well as before the Supreme Court was more or less similar to the controversy involved in the present case. The Division Bench held that section 20 which confers a valuable right on the land owner or person interested in it to insist on the authority to acquire the land for the purpose of town planning within a reasonable period of ten years has to be so construed as to allow the operation in a given contemplated situation. The provision contained in section 20 cannot be construed in a manner that it would seldom be brought into operation or can be never brought into effect as and when the final development plan is made subject to revision under section 21 of the Act. From the reading of sub-section (2) of section 20 what one finds of utmost importance is the fixation of ten years’ period which appears to have been so fixed in view of ten years’ period mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 17. From the reading of sub-section (2) of section 20 what one finds of utmost importance is the fixation of ten years’ period which appears to have been so fixed in view of ten years’ period mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 17. Ten years’ period both for the purposes of section 17(2) and for sub-section (2) of section 20 is considered by the Legislature to be a reasonable period within which the land designated or reserved for one or more of the purposes mentioned in various clauses under sub-section (2) of section 12, should be acquired and failure to do so furnishes right to the land owner or person interested in it to serve six months’ notice for acquisition to the authority and get his land freed from the restraints under the Act to enable him to develop it according to his legal rights. The Division Bench held that such a provision aims at striking a balance between the competing claims of the authorities in the interest of general public and rights of an individual. Provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20 have to be, therefore, given full effect. They cannot be rendered merely paper provisions available to the land owner in rarest of rare cases, such as is contended, where there is not even a proposal for revision of a final development plan within or on expiry of ten years’ period as specified. The Division Bench was of the view that the plain meaning of the expression “atleast one in ten years” in the opening part of section 21 is that the final development plan must be revised minimum once in ten years and may be revised more than once in ten years. It also conveys that similarly on each expiry of ten years, it has to be subjected to revision at least once. This expression, in the proviso in section 21 of the Act cannot be read to nullify operation of section 20 and render nugatory the period of ten years fixed as an outer limit for acquisition of reserved or designated land for specified purposes and creation of corresponding right to the land owners to serve six months’ notice and get the land freed from designation or acquisition. The Division Bench found it difficult to accept the contention that as and when the process of preparation of the draft revised development plan commences under section 21 of the Act before or on expiry of ten years’ period counted from the earlier final development plan, the owner must go on waiting for a further period of ten years from each revised development plan for the purpose of invoking his right of service of six months’ notice under section 20(2) of the Act. 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the final development plan came to be sanctioned on 3rd January, 1986 and came into force on 3rd March, 1986. Accordingly, the ten year period came to an end on 4th March, 1996. Thereupon, a right came to be created in favour of the land owners under section 20 of the Town Planning Act to serve six months’ notice to the authorities to acquire the subject land, failing which, the reservation would be deemed to have lapsed. The framing of revised development plan subsequent to the period of ten years from the first final development plan and sanctioning thereof, would not take away the rights of the petitioners under sub-section (2) of section 20 of serving notice thereunder to the respondent authorities to acquire the subject lands. Accordingly, the petitioners served notice dated 13th October, 2007 under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act to the respondent authorities requiring them to acquire the subject lands. However, the respondent authorities failed to acquire the subject lands or to commence steps to acquire them. Consequently, upon failure to comply with the said notice, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20 came into operation and the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the contention that the revised final development plan having been sanctioned in the year 2004, the ten year period would expire only in the year 2014 does not merit acceptance. 17. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the contention that the revised final development plan having been sanctioned in the year 2004, the ten year period would expire only in the year 2014 does not merit acceptance. 17. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. It is held that upon failure of the respondents to acquire the subject lands or to commence steps for acquiring them within six months of service of the notice dated 13th October, 2007 issued by the petitioners under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act, the reservation of the subject lands is deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the continued reservation of the subject lands in the final revised development plan as well as Draft Town Planning Scheme No.27 (Bhatar – Majura) is also bad. The petitioners’ lands reserved for the commercial purpose of SUDA shall stand dereserved on failure of the authorities to acquire the lands within the prescribed period under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Town Planning Act regardless of the issuance of final revised development plan and issuance of Draft Town Planning Scheme. Accordingly, the status of the subject lands in the Draft Town Planning Scheme shall no longer be reflected to be under reservation of SUDA for commercial purposes. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.