The Gujarat High Court has examined the interplay between Section 20 (lapse of reservation) and Section 21 (revision of Development Plan) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, in the context of long-pending reservations for public roads.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 41 and 42/P4 at Village Nava Deesa, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha (admeasuring 2529 sq. mtrs.), challenged the continued reservation of his land for a Development Plan (DP) Road. The reservation originated in the Draft Development Plan of 1975 and was carried forward through revisions, including those in 1994 and 2016.
The petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 20(2) on 04.05.2022. The respondent authority (Deesa Nagarpalika) replied that the 10-year period under Section 20 must be counted from the latest revised Development Plan sanctioned on 07.01.2016, rendering the notice premature. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking declaration that the reservation had lapsed.
Key Issues
- Whether the 10-year period under Section 20(2) is reckoned from the original Development Plan or from each subsequent revision.
- Whether revision of a Development Plan under Section 21 can perpetually extend the reservation period and defeat the owner’s statutory right under Section 20(2).
- Effect of the petitioner’s purchase notice and subsequent inaction by authorities.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Justice Niral R. Mehta delivered the CAV judgment on 29 June 2026, analysing the statutory scheme in detail.
The Court held that:
- Section 20(2) provides a vital safeguard against indefinite reservations without acquisition. Once 10 years expire from the date the final Development Plan comes into force without acquisition or proceedings, the owner can issue a notice. Failure to act within six months thereafter results in deemed lapse of reservation.
- Revision under Section 21 requires following the full procedure under Sections 9 to 20 afresh. However, such revisions cannot be used to indefinitely defeat accrued rights under Section 20(2).
- The Court emphasised that the legislative intent is to balance public planning needs with the constitutional right to property under Article 300A.
- In the present case, considering the history of the reservation since 1975 and the facts, the petition was examined on merits. The Court ultimately allowed the petition in part, declaring the reservation lapsed by operation of law, subject to the detailed factual matrix and statutory compliance.
The judgment extensively reproduced and interpreted relevant provisions (Sections 9 to 21) and relied on precedents like Palitana Sugar Mill, Bhavnagar University, and others to support the owner-friendly interpretation preventing perpetual reservations.
Key Takeaways
- Reservations under Development Plans cannot continue indefinitely without concrete steps for acquisition.
- A revised Development Plan does not automatically reset the 10-year clock under Section 20(2) in a manner that nullifies accrued rights of landowners.
- Purchase notices under Section 20(2) must be evaluated based on when the final Development Plan (post-sanction) came into force.
- Planning authorities must act diligently within statutory timelines to avoid lapse of reservations.
- The ruling reinforces protection of private property rights while upholding planned urban development.
Case Details
Case Name: Ajaykumar Babulal Gehlot v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 9037 of 2023
Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Niral R. Mehta
Date of Judgment: 29 June 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 