SCA/707/2000 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 707 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VITHALBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL & 6 - Petitioner(s) Versus AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HM PARIKH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7. MS. RETA CHANDARANA AGP for Respondent(s) :3. MR BS PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 23/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have in the present petition prayed for a declaration that land bearing Survey SCA/707/2000 2/6 JUDGMENT No.266/4/1 of Patlad is not reserved land from January 1995. They have prayed for a further direction that respondents shall permit the petitioners to develop the said land in accordance with law. 2. From the averments on record it emerges that land bearing S.No.266 was sub-divided into sub- plots bearing S.Nos.266/4, 266/4/1 and 266/4/2. Sub-plot No.266/4/1 was reserved for public purpose, namely, that of public garden in the Town Planning Scheme No.2, which became final on 30.9.1978. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents had to acquire the said land within the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act ('TP Act' for short) and since no steps have been taken to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the said land for more than ten years after the same was reserved for public purpose, said reservation should be treated to have lapsed. SCA/707/2000 3/6 JUDGMENT 3. From the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents it becomes clear that the petitioners who were the original owners of S.No.266 were allotted final plot Nos.266/4 and 266/4/2 in lieu of their original plot and final plot No.266/4/1 was allotted to appropriate authority in the Town Planning Scheme which was finally sanctioned by the Government. It is, therefore, contended that provisions of Section 20 read with Section 12 of the TP Act which apply to a development plan cannot be made applicable to the present case. 4. Learned advocate Shri H.M. Parikh for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal v. State of Gujarat through Secretary, 2001 (1) GLR 888 and submitted that by virtue of operation of Section 20 of the TP Act and by passage of time, the reservation for public purpose should be treated to have been lapsed. SCA/707/2000 4/6 JUDGMENT 5. I am however, unable to accept the contention. Section 20 applies in case where there is development plan under which land is reserved for public purpose wherein it is provided, inter-alia, that if said land is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan or if proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, the owner or any interested person may serve a notice on the authority requiring it to acquire the land and if within six months of service of such notice the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. 6. In the present case, admittedly, no such scenario arises. Present is a case where the final Town Planning Scheme has already been sanctioned. It is under such scheme that part of the land originally belonging to the petitioners SCA/707/2000 5/6 JUDGMENT is ear-marked for public purpose. The petitioners are already allotted final plot in lieu of the original plot of their ownership. By operation of sub-section (3) of section 65 of the TP Act the provisions contained under the town planning scheme have acquired statutory force. Further, as per Section 67 of the TP Act, the land required by the appropriate authority vests absolutely in appropriate authority free from all encumbrances. 7. In A.G.B.K. Mandal's case (supra), facts are vastly different. Land in question was under the Development Plan reserved for public purpose. The Court found that said reservation had lapsed in terms of provision contained in Section 20 (2) of the TP Act. Under the Draft Town Planning Scheme once again same lands were subjected to same reservation. The Bench found that such reservation would defeat the purpose of Section 20 (2) of the TP Act. As already noted, in the present case, facts are vastly different. Present is not a case of designation being supplied in SCA/707/2000 6/6 JUDGMENT the development plan. Ratio laid down in the decision of A.G.B.K. Mandal's case (supra), therefore, would not apply. 8. The petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Akil Kureshi, J.) ... (karan)