BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY versus PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT, LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 03-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHA VNAGAR UNIVERSITY 
v. 
PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT, LTD. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., K.G, BALAKRISHNAN AND 
S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
land laws: 
A 
B 
Gztjarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976-Sections C 
20(/) and (2) and 21 (/)-Reservation of land under the Act/or r:cquisition-
Failure to acquire for more than I 0 years despite service of notice uls 
20(2)-/ssuance of draft revised pla1>-Whether the land stood de-reserved/ 
de-designated or whether the term of I 0 years stood extended in view of draft 
revised pla1>-Held, the land stands de-reserved/de-designated upon expiry D 
of specified period-Duration of reservation/designation which has lapsed, 
would not get extended by reason of revised plan-land Acquisition Act, 
1894. 
Interpretation of Statute-Recourse to construction of statute-Need 
for-Held, is required only in case of ambiguity, obscurity or inconsistency E 
in the statute and not otherwise-True meaning of a provision has. to he 
determined from its clear language with due regard to the scheme of law-
Scope of legislation or intention of legislature cannot be enlarged when 
language of provision is unambiguous-A beneficent provision must be 
liberally construed 
law of Precedence-Decision is an authority for which it is decided 
and not what can logically be deduced-A /iule difference in facts and 
additional facts may make difference in Precedential value of decision. 
Practice & Procedure: 
Plea before Supreme Court that contentions raised before High Court 
not taken into consideration-Held, cannot be gone into-Appropriate 
remedy lies before High Court in its review jurisdiction. 
F 
G 
State reserved certain land u/s 20 of Gujarat Tm'Jn Planning and Urban H 
517 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Development Act, 1976. The development plan, on expiry of 10 years from the 
dale of its publication lapsed. Respondents, the owners of the lands issued 
notices in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act asking the State to acquire the 
properties. Draft of revised development plan was issued. 
The question for consideration in the cases was whether by reason of 
B inaction on the part of the State to acquire the lands for more than 10 years 
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite service of notice, the same stood 
de-reserved/de-designated; or in view of issuance of draft revised plan the term 
of 10 years stood extended. 
High Court had held that issuance of draft revised plan by itself does 
C not put an embargo on the application of Section 20(2) of the Act. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. Sections 20 and 21 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban 
Development Act, 1976 are required to be read conjunctively with Sections 
12 and 17 of the Act. Whereas in terms of Sections-12 and 17, the reservation 
and designation have been provided, Section 20(1) only enables the authorities 
to acquire the land designated or reserved for the purpose specifically 
mentioned in Section 12(2) (b) and (n) as also other clauses specified therefor 
E either by acquisition or agreement or in terms of the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 20(1) is merely an enabling provision in terms 
whereof the State become entitled to acquire the land either by agreement or 
taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If by reason of 
revised plan, any other area is sought to be b~ought within the purview of the 
F 
development, evidently in relation thereto the State will be entitled to exercise 
its jurisdiction under Section 20(1) but it will bear repetition to state that th.e 
same would not confer any other or further power upon the State to get the 
duratio.n of designation of land, which has been lapsed, extended. What is 
contemplated under Section 21 is to meet the changed situation and 
contingencies which might not have been contemplated while preparing the 
G first final development plan. The power of the State enumerated under Section 
20(1) does not become ipso facto applicable in the event of issuance ofa revised 
. plan as the said provision has been specifically mentioned therein so that the 
state may use the same power in a changed situation. 
1530-D, F, G; 533-H; 534-A-Cj 
H 
1.2. Section 20(2), however, carves out an exception to the exercise of 
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITYv. PALIT ANA SUGAR MILL PVT. L TO. 
519 
" 
powers by the State as regards acquisition of the land for the purpose of A 
carryi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.