State Can't Indefinitely Reserve Private Land Without Commencing Acquisition Or Timely Development Plan Revision: Gujarat High Court

Revoking the continued reservation of a person's land for fifty years without initiation of acquisition proceedings, the Gujarat High Court held that if land is not acquired nor revision proceedings are initiated within 10 years and despite notice the authority fails to commence acquisition within six months then such reservation shall lapse. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 82]

In doing so the court held that while State and the planning authorities undoubtedly possess statutory powers to reserve private land for public purposes for planned development, however such powers have to be "exercised strictly in conformity with the procedure and within the time limits prescribed by the Legislature".

The court further observed that the power cannot be "exercised in a manner that permits reservation of private property for an indefinite period", thereby frustrating the statutory protection conferred upon the landowner under law. 

The plea sought a declaration that the reservation of the Development Plan (DP) Road over the land in question had lapsed by operation of Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. 

The petitioner argued that despite the reservation continuing for several decades, no proceedings for acquisition of the land were initiated. The  petitioner served a  purchase notice under Section 20 upon the competent authority on 04.05.2022.  However Deesa Nagarpalika informed that 10 year period was required to be reckoned from the date of sanction of the revised Development Plan, i.e. 07.01.2016. Against this the petitioner moved the high court. 

Justice Niral R Mehta referred to Section 20(2) and observed that the legislative intent was to strike a balance between the power of the planning authority to reserve land for public purposes and the constitutional right of the owner to enjoy and deal with his property.

"The provision is intended to ensure that private property is not subjected to an indefinite or perpetual reservation without acquisition. However, the right conferred under Section 20(2) is not absolute and becomes enforceable only upon fulfilment of the statutory preconditions. Firstly, the land must not have been acquired, nor should acquisition proceedings have been commenced, within a period of ten years from the date on which the final Development Plan comes into force. Secondly, upon expiry of the said period, the owner or occupier is required to serve the statutory notice contemplated under Section 20(2), calling upon the competent authority to acquire the land. It is only upon the failure of the authority to acquire the land or to commence acquisition proceedings within six months from the date of service of such notice that the legal fiction enacted by the Legislature comes into operation, resulting in the deemed lapse of the reservation or designation attached to the land," the court said. 

It further said that Section 21 contemplates that the Area Development Authority shall revise the final Development Plan at least once every ten years from the date on which the plan comes into force.

Referring to the language of the Section the court said that the Legislature has consciously provided that the final Development Plan shall be revised “at least once in every ten years” from the date on which it comes into force which indicates that revision is intended to be exercised within this period and "not at any indefinite point of time thereafter". 

It thus held that where the revision proceedings are not initiated within ten years, and the conditions under Section 20(2) otherwise stand fulfilled, the statutory right accrued in favour of the owner or occupier cannot be defeated by subsequently invoking Section 21.

"The rights conferred under Sections 20 and 21 are complementary and operate within their respective statutory fields...if there is neither acquisition of the land nor initiation of revision proceedings within the prescribed period of ten years, and despite service of the statutory notice the authority fails to acquire the land or commence acquisition proceedings within six months, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law," the court said. 

The court however said that validity of a reservation and applicability of Sections 20 and 21 would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be applied and each case is required to be examined on its own factual matrix. 

The court said that certain factors would be relevant for this assessment including date on which the final Development Plan came into force, date on which the statutory period of ten years prescribed under Section 20(2) expired, whether the land was acquired or whether acquisition proceedings were commenced within ten years among others. 

In the present case the court found that as per the record at every stage the process of revision of the land was initiated beyond the statutory period of ten years contemplated under Section 21. Even thereafter, the authorities took several years to complete the statutory exercise culminating in sanction of the revised Development Plans.

"Keeping the aforesaid chronology in juxtaposition with the scheme of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-authorities have failed to exercise their statutory powers within the time frame prescribed by the Legislature. The repeated revisions of the Development Plan have not been preceded by timely initiation of proceedings under Section 21 and, therefore, cannot have the effect of defeating the statutory right accruing to the petitioner under Section 20(2). The record further discloses an unexplained and prolonged delay on the part of the respondent-authorities in undertaking the statutory exercise. The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted reflects complete administrative lethargy and indifference to the mandate of the Act. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner has remained deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his property for nearly five decades without the land being acquired in accordance with law," the court said. 

The court allowed the plea and declared that the reservation had lapsed. 

Case title: AJAYKUMAR BABULAL GEHLOT v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9037 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 82