1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no.3992 of 2013, the appellant – original petitioner has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

2.1 That, the appellant herein is an owner and occupier of the land bearing survey no.582/1 and 582/2, situated at Vadodara. The appellant purchased the land in question by two different registered Sale Deeds executed on 7.2.2012 from the original owners – Pirojsha Pestanji Contractor and others. The land in question is developed and 6 constructed bungalows and 29 plots exist on the land in question. The land in question is situated within the city limits of Vadodara and is within the area of Vadodara Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “VUDA” for the sake of brevity). VUDA came to be constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “ the” for the sake of brevity) on 1.2.1978. VUDA thereafter published a Draft Development Plan as provided under Section 13 of the Act, wherein the land in question was reserved for Local Commercial Center for the benefit of Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The original owner raised objections before VUDA on 4.8.1980. Ultimately, the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 of the Act, sanctioned the Draft Development Plan of VUDA on 22.12.1983. It is a matter of fact that no steps were taken to acquire the land in question. VUDA thereafter again published Revised Draft Development Plan on 11.11.1993, wherein also, the land in question was reserved for Local Commercial Center by Vadodara Municipal Corporation. VUDA invited objections as provided under the and the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for the sake of brevity). The original owner submitted objections on 19.12.1994. Upon considering the same, the State Government sanctioned the Revised Draft Development Plan on 25.10.1996. On 26.11.1996, the State Government sanctioned Revised Development Plan with one modification that the State Government deleted the reservation in respect of land admeasuring about 6000 sq. mtrs. of survey no.582/2-1 Part covered by bungalows no.118 and 119.

2.2 Record indicates that thereafter, vide notification dated 23.11.2006, VUDA again published Revised Draft Development Plan, wherein the land in question was reserved for institutional use by Vadodara Municipal Corporation and parking zone under Section 12(2)(o) of the. Pursuant to a public notice issued, the original owner also filed objections on 21.11.2007. The land owners also made a representation to the Urban Development Minister of the State of Gujarat on 21.9.2011 and also contended that the reservation lapsed as per Section 20(2) of the.

2.3 The objections which were raised were also subject matter of a Writ Petition filed by the original owners being Special Civil Application no.16159 of 2011, wherein a specific plea of non-hearing was taken and this Court, vide order dated 21.10.2011, disposed of the said Writ Petition while observing that the representation made by such person be considered before finalizing or taking final approval to the draft plan and the same development plan was to come into force from 18.1.2012. Record indicates that after the final Revised Development Plan was sanctioned, the original owners again made a representation to the Urban Health Ministry on 24.1.2012. The said representation was also forwarded to VUDA. Record indicates that on 12.6.2012, the Collector, Vadodara issued a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and sought to acquire the land admeasuring 5114.0906 sq. mtrs. out of the land in question for the purpose of road. By a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector, Vadodara also made declaration on 9.8.2012. The appellant herein filed another representation to VUDA with a request to drop the reservation and also took contention of Section 20(2) of theand contended that the reservation has lapsed. It is also a matter of record that the said representation was also sent to Vadodara Municipal Corporation which was replied by the Municipal Corporation. Respondent no.2 – VUDA passed a Resolution being Resolution no.6 in General Body Meeting on 5.9.2012 and it was resolved that the land which was reserved for public purpose may be kept as it is. The land which is reserved for parking zone be redesignated to the residential zone. It appears from the record that such Resolution passed by VUDA was objected by the respondent no.3 – Corporation vide communication dated 24.9.2012 and contended that the respondent no.3 - Corporation may take steps to acquire the land for parking purpose on the Public Private Partnership basis. The appellant thereafter filed the present Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no. 3992 of 2013 and prayed as under:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned action of respondent authorities in continuing the reservation of the land owned by the petitioner bearing survey Nos.582/1 and 582/2 situate at Vadodara as being illegal, unjust, unreasonable, nonest, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to declare that the reservation on the subject lands has lapsed, in the interest of justice and equity;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated 24.9.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 as being illegal, unjust, unreasonable, nonest, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 18.1.2012 issued by respondent no.1 as being illega, unjust, unreasonable, nonest, arbitrary and violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to include the land/property of the petitioner covered by land bearing survey No.582/1 and 582/2 situate at Vadodara in the residential zone, in the interest of justice and equity;

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to accept the plans for development of land bearing survey No. 582/1 and 582/2 situate at Vadodara owned by the petitioner for development as if there is no reservation, on such terms as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice;”

2.4 The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.7.2014, dismissed the said petition and being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed.

3. It is also brought on record that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant issued a fresh notice on 13.8.2014 as stipulated under the provisions of Section 20(2) of theto Vadodara Municipal Corporation and VUDA, inter-alia, requiring them to acquire the land with further stipulation that if the land is not acquired within 6 months of the service of notice, the reservation/designation shall be deemed to have lapsed as per Section 20(2) of the.

4. Heard Mr. Navin K. Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shruti Dhruve for Thakkar and Pahwa Associates for the appellant, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate with Mr. R.M. Chauhan, learned advocate for respondent no.2 – VUDA and Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 - Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

5. Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 , [LQ/SC/2002/1277] contended that even after the notice, six months have passed and the land is not acquired and reservation/designation lapsed. It was contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that no proper notice has been given by the appellant. Mr. Pahwa also relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Gujarat Housing Board Vs. State of Gujarat, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal no.476 of 2018 in Special Civil Application no. 7149 of 2008 dated 12.7.2018.

(ii) Surat Urban Development Authority Vs. Ghanshyambhai Vallabhbhai Nakarani & Ors., rendered in Special Leave Petition (C) no.22634-22636 of 2018 dated 19.8.2019.

(iii) Mrugee Traders and Developers Vs. Bhavnagar Area Development Authority, rendered in Special Civil Application no.16791 of 2014 dated 9.2.2016.

(iv) State of Gujarat Vs. Mrugee Traders & Developers, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal no.1435 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018.

(v) Deepakbhai J. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2004) 3 GLH 789.

(vi) Ramanlal Ratanlal Haribhakti Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. rendered in Letters Patent Appeal no.171 of 2005 dated 18.4.2006.

(vii) Vrundavan Party Plot & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Letters Patent Appeal no.112 of 2009 in Special Civil Application no. 13731 of 2005 dated 25.3.2014.

(viii) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 554 [LQ/SC/2015/106] .

5.1 Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, in his written submissions, has relied upon the decision in the case of deceased Ravjibhai Narsinhbhai through LRs Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., dated 21.12.2015 rendered in Special Civil Application no. 2827 of 1998 on the point of lapse of reservation and following judgments on continuation of proceedings being Letters Patent Appeal and for consideration of other points:-

[a] Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. Motor & General Traders, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 770 [LQ/SC/1975/124] .

[b] Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. Jot Ram & Anr., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 194 [LQ/SC/1975/355] .

[c] Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 640 [LQ/SC/2017/199] .

5.2 Mr. Pahwa has also invited attention of this Court to the factual matrix and action taken subsequent to disposal of the Writ Petition and before filing of the present appeal and has relied upon the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by this Court, order dated 9.2.2021 and the interim order dated 28.6.2021. It is contended by Mr. Pahwa that admittedly, no action is taken by Vadodara Municipal Corporation to acquire the land by agreement under the acquisition proceedings despite the fact that there is a reservation since 1980 and no steps are taken. It was contended that the notice dated 13.8.2014 has been received by both the authorities and it is an admitted position that no proceeding for acquisition are undertaken by the Corporation.

Mr. Pahwa thus contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed by granting the prayers prayed for in the Writ Petition.

6. Per contra, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent no.3-Vadodara Municipal Corporation has opposed the appeal and has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent–Corporation.Mr. Nanavati submitted that the notice as contemplated under Section 20(2) of thehas been given to Vadodara Municipal Corporation by the appellant and therefore, the reservation would not lapse. Distinguishing the judgments relied upon by Mr. Pahwa, it was contended by Mr. Nanavati that in the case on hand, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court would not apply. Mr. Nanavati vehemently contended that the notice under Section 20(2) of theis sine qua non and no such notice is given to Vadodara Municipal Corporation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of theeither by the original owners or the present appellant who became the owner subsequently in the year 2012. Mr. Nanavati contended that fresh notice which is now issued during pendency of this appeal is a premature notice as the period of 10 years is to be taken into reckoning from the date on which the final development plan is sanctioned. Mr. Nanavati therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and the appellant is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the petition and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 as well as Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate with Mr. R.M. Chauhan, learned advocate for respondent no.2 – VUDA have adopted the arguments made by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Vadodara Municipal Corporation and have contended that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

9. Before reverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976:-

“12. Contents of draft development plan.-

(1) A draft development plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area covered by it shall be regulated and also indicate the manner in which the development therein shall be carried out.

(2) In particular, it shall provide, so far as may be necessary, for all or any of the following matters, namely :-

(a) proposals for designating the use of the land for residential, industrial, commercial, "educational," agricultural and recreational purposes;

(b) Proposals for the reservation of land for public purposes, such as schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places for public entertainment, public assembly, museums, art galleries, religious buildings play, grounds, stadia, open spaces, dairies and form such other purposes as may, for time to time, be specified by the State Government "or such other purposes";

(c) proposals for designation of areas for zoological gardens, green belts, natural reserves "water body, water course" and sanctuaries;

(d) transport and communications, such as roads, highways, parkways, railways, waterways, canals and airports, including their extension and development;

(e) proposals for water supply, drainage, sewage disposal, other public utility amenities and services including supply of electricity and gas;

(f) reservation of land for community facilities and services;

(g) proposals for designation of sites for service industries, industrial estates and any other industrial development on an extensive scale;

(h) preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery and landscape "and of heritage buildings and heritage precincts" ;

(i) preservation of features, structures of places of historical, natural architectural or scientific interest and of educational value;

(j) proposals for food control and prevention of river pollution;

(k) proposals for the reservation of land for the purpose of Union, any State, local authority or any other authority or body established by or under any law for the time being in force.

(l) the filling up or reclamation of low laying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land;

(m) provision for controlling and regulating the use and development of land within the development area, "including imposition of charges at such rate as may be provided for grant of Floor Space Index (FSI) or height, and also imposition of" conditions and restrictions in regard to the open space to be maintained for buildings, the percentage of building area for a plot, the location, number, size, height, number of storeys and character of buildings and density of built up area allowed in specified area, the use and purposes to which a building or specified areas of land may or may not be appropriated, the subdivisions of plots, the discontinuance of objectionable uses of land in any area in any specified periods, parking spaces, loading and unloading space for any building and the sizes of projections and advertisement signs and hoardings and other matters as may be considered necessary for carrying out the objects of this Act;

(n) provision for preventing or removing pollution of water or air caused by the discharge of waste or other means as a result of the use of land;

(o) such other proposals for public or other purposes as may from time to time be approved by the area development authority or as may be directed by the State Government in this behalf.

13. Publication of draft development plan.-

(1) The area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer shall, as soon as may be, after a draft development plan is prepared and submitted to the State Government under section 9, publish it in the official Gazatte and in such other manner as may be prescribed alongwith a notice in the prescribed manner, inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the development plan within a period of two months from the date of its publication.

(2) The following particulars shall be published alongwith the draft development plan, namely:-

(a) A statement indicating broadly the uses to which lands in the area covered by the plan are proposed to be put and any survey carried out for the preparation of the draft development plan;

(b) maps, chart and statements explaining the provisions of the draft development plan;

(c) the draft regulations for enforcing the provisions of the draft development plan;

(d) procedure explaining the manner in which permission for developing any land may be obtained from the area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer;

(e) a statement of the stage of development by which it is proposed to meet any obligation imposed on the area development authority by the draft development plan;

(f) an approximate estimate of the cost involved in acquisition of land reserved for public purposes.

17. Power of State Government to sanction draft development plan.-

(1) (a) On receipt of the draft development plan under section 16 , the State Government may, by notification,-

(i) sanction the draft development plan and the regulations so received, within the prescribed period, for the whole of the area covered by the plan or separately for any part thereof, either without modifications, or subject to such modifications, as it may consider proper; or

(ii) return the draft development plan and the regulations to the area development authority or, as the case may be, to the authorised officer, for modifying the plan and the regulations in such manner as it may direct:

Provided that, where the State Government is of opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations are necessary, the State Government may, instead of returning them to the area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer under this subclause, publish the modifications as considered necessary in the Official Gazatte alongwith a notice in the prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications within a period of two months from the date of publication of such notice; or

(iii) refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations and direct the area development authority or the authorised officer to prepare a fresh development plan under the provisions of this Act.

(b) Where a development plan and regulations are returned to an area development authority, or, as the case may be, the authorised officer under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the area development authority, or, as the case may be, the authorised officer, shall carry out the modifications therein as directed by the State Government and then submit them as so modified to the State Government for sanction; and the State Government shall thereupon sanction them after satisfying itself that the modifications suggested have been duly carried out therein.

(c) Where the State Government has published the modifications considered necessary in a draft development plan as required under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the State Government shall, before according sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations, take into consideration the suggestions or objections that may have been received thereto, and thereafter accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations in such modified from as it may consider fit.

(d) The sanction accorded under clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazatte and the draft development plan together with the regulations so sanctioned shall be called the final development plan.

(e) The final development plan shall come into force on such date as the State Government may specify in the notification issued under clause (d):

(2) Where the draft development plan submitted by an area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer contains any proposals for the reservation of any land for a purpose specified in clause (b) or clause (n) or clause (o) of sub-section (2) of section 12 and such land does not vest in the area development authority, the State Government shall not include the said reservation in the development plan, unless it is satisfied that such authority would acquire the land, whether by agreement or compulsory acquisition, within ten years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force.

(3) A Final development plan which has come into force shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the area development, authority concerned and on all other authorities situated in the area of the development plan.

(4) After the final development plan comes into force, the area development authority concerned may execute any work for developing, redeveloping or improving any area within the area covered by the plan in accordance with the proposals contained in the development plan.

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-sec. (2) of Sec. 12, may acquire the land,—

(a) by an agreement, or;

(b) in lieu of any development right by granting the owner against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances;

(c) under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(2) If the land referred to in subsection (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 (1 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 acquisition, the designation of the land as aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed.

21. Revision of development plan.-

Atleast once in ten years from the date on which a final development plan comes into force, the area development authority shall revise the development plan after carrying out, if necessary, a fresh survey and the provision of sections 9 to 20, shall so far as may be, apply to such revision.”

10. Section 20(2) thus provides that if the land is not acquired by agreement within a period of 10 years from the date of the 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 6 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, as aforesaid, shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, the said provision gives a right to the land owner to serve the notice “on the authority concerned” requiring it to acquire the land and on service of such notice, if no steps are taken for acquisition either by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of 6 months thereafter by the deeming fiction, designation of the land would lapse. In opinion of this Court therefore, a proper notice and notice to the authority concerned which is required to acquire the land is a sine qua non for operation of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the. The provision of Section 20(2) of thedoes not apply automatically by lapse of time, but it would apply when a notice is served in the manner and after the time as prescribed under the said provision. Resultantly, reservation/ designation would then lapse.

11. The facts thus reveal that right from the First Draft Development Plan of VUDA, the lands in question have been reserved/designated for public purpose for Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It would therefore be necessary to refer to the record and to find out whether any such notice as contemplated under Section 20(2) of thehas been given to the authority concerned which, in the present case, would be Vadodara Municipal Corporation. From the record of the appeal, it reveals that on 4.8.1980, the original owners sent objection to the Chairman of VUDA. However, the same cannot be termed as notice as provided under Section 20(2) of the. As per the factual matrix, the Government sanctioned the Final Development Plan on 22.12.1983. During subsistence of that plan i.e. for 10 years, no notice was given by the original owners. The Revised Development Plan came to be sanctioned vide notification dated 25.10.1996 and the Final Draft Development Plan came into effect from 26.11.1996. Even thereafter, no notice is found on record. The record further indicates that on 23.11.2006, the Second Revised Draft Development Plan was published, wherein the lands in question were designated for institutional use by Vadodara Municipal Corporation and parking zone under the provisions of Section 12(2)(O) of theand the said plan ultimately was sanctioned as Revised Final Development Plan on 18.1.2012 and it has come into force from the said date i.e. 18.1.2012. Though Mr. Pahwa contended that the original land owners had objected to such proposals of the Revised Draft Development Plan, the same would not constitute a notice as provided under Section 20(2) of the. The last Revised Development Plan has come into force from 18.1.2012 as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the. The land owners or a person interested can serve a notice under Section 20(2) of theif the land is not acquired either by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of 10 years from the date of coming into force of the Final Development Plan. 10 years is not yet over and hence, fresh notice issued by the present appellant to VUDA on 13.8.2014 is a premature notice as period of 10 years is not lapsed. Coming to the facts as it stand in the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge has rightly found that no notice has been given to Vadodara Municipal Corporation. There is nothing on record to show that any notice under Section 20(2) of thewas given by the erstwhile owners of the predecessor-intitle of the appellant. It is also a matter of record that it is reservation/designation for Vadodara Municipal Corporation and therefore, as provided under Section 20(2), a notice has to be given to the authority concerned, which is required to acquire the land and not the Urban Development Authority. Therefore, in absence of any notice to Vadodara Municipal Corporation by the original owners, the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of thewould not trigger at all.

12. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. M.R. Shah, J. as His Lordship then was) in the case of Deepakbhai J. Shah (supra), wherein after considering the relevant provisions of the, it is held thus:-

“19. As per sub-section (iii) of subsection (2) of Section 20, the appropriate authority means 'Area Development Authority' or 'Urban Development Authority' as the case may be. As per sub-section (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, 'Area Development Authority' means 'Area Development Authority' constituted under Section 5 and includes a local authority designated as such under sub-section (1) of Section or Government Company designated as such under Section 6(a). In the present case, VUDA is the Area Development Authority. Section 20 provides for contents of Draft Development Plan. Under Section 12, while preparing a draft development plan proposals for the reservation of the land for the purpose of Union, any State, local authority or any other authority or body established by or under any law for the time being in force are required to be made. Thus, while preparing a Draft Development Plan and considering the need of the authority or body established by Code or under any law for the time being in force is required to be made such as reservation for GHB, and reservation for Gujarat Slum Clearance Board. Thus, in the present case while preparing the Draft Development Plan the lands came in question came to be reserved for Gujarat Housing Board or Gujarat Slum Clearance Board respectively looking to the need of the said authorities. Under the provisions of the and considering the scheme of the, the Draft Development Plan is required to be framed and prepared by VUDA the appropriate authority. However, considering the provisions of the and the scheme of the the land is in fact required to be acquired either by agreement and/or the steps are required to be taken for the purpose of commencement of the acquisition by the authority for whose benefit the land is reserved, i.e., in the present case GHB or GSCB. Even on completion of the acquisition the compensation for the land which is acquired is also required to be paid by the GHB or GSCB, as the case may be. Thus, at no point of time the Area Development Authority, i.e., in the present case, VUDA, is required to take any steps for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question either by agreement and/or to take steps for commencement of its acquisition. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the following points are required to be considered in the present Special Civil Applications;

(i) Whether notice only upon the Area Development Authority and not upon the authority for whose benefit the land is reserved is sufficient for attracting the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 20, serving a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of theonly upon the Area Development Authority, i.e., in the present case, VUDA, would suffice for the purpose of lapsing of the reservation

(ii) What can be said to be 'commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the steps for commencement of its acquisition';

(iii) Service of notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 20 on the authority other than the authority which is contemplated under Section 112 of thewould suffice under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the.

20. Considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, while preparing the Draft Development Plan it was considered thought it fit to have the reservation for Gujarat Housing Board or Gujarat Slum Clearance Board. Thus, the GHB or GSCB is the "authority concerned", so far as sub-section (2) of Section 20 is concerned. As stated hereinabove, Section 20 of theis required to be divided into three parts;

(1) The Area Development Authority or any authority for whose purpose the land is designated in the final development plan may acquire the land either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;

(2) If the land referred to in subsection (1) of Section 20 is not acquired by agreement within a period of 10 years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, there will be a right accrued in favour of the owner or any person interested in the land to serve a notice on the "authority concerned" requiring it to acquire the land;

(3) 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 then designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed.

Considering the provisions of the, the land can be designated as reserved either for the Area Development Authority itself and/or for any other authority. If the land is reserved for Area Development Authority such as Parks, Gardens, Schools etc., then it is for the Area Development Authority to acquire the land by agreement or under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. If the land is designated and reserved for any other authority such as Gujarat Housing Board or Gujarat Slum Clearance Board, then the land in question is required to be acquired either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the said authorities. In the present case, the land in question is reserved for Gujarat Housing Board and Gujarat Slum Clearance Board respectively. Thus, the land in question is required to be acquired either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by GHB and GSCB respectively. Under sub-section (2) of Section 20, if the land is not acquired by agreement within a period of 10 years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period there will be a right in favour of the owner or any person interested in the land to serve a notice on the "authority concerned", i.e., in the present case on the Gujarat Housing Board and Gujarat Slum Clearance Board respectively requiring them to acquire the land. What is contemplated in the first part of sub-section (2) of Section 20 is that if the land is not acquired by agreement or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced, considering the scheme of the and also Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be said to be commenced when the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued. So, if the notification under Section 4 of theis not issued within a period of 10 years, in that case there will be a right in favour the person interested to serve a notice on the "authority concerned", i.e. GHB and GSCB respectively requiring them to acquire the land. After the service of the notice on the authority concerned, i.e., in the present case GHB and GSCB if the land in question is not acquired (by agreement) or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, then the designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, what is contemplated in the second part of sub-section (2) of Section 20 is not with regard to to commencement of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act but to take steps for commencing its acquisition. So, the moment it is shown that after receipt of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 20 that the steps are taken by the authority concerned for commencement of its acquisition, then designation of the land will not lapse. There is a purpose for it and intention of Legislature while having two distinctions is very clear and there is some justification also. As the land is required to be acquired for the authority concerned is either by Collector and/or Special Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. So everything ultimately depends upon the Collector and/or the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The "authority concerned", for whose benefit the land is reserved, is dependent upon the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act so far as acquisition of the land in question is concerned. Even for the purpose of acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, so many things are required to be considered by the authority under the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. Collector and/or Special Land Acquisition Officer such as the need of the authority, how much land is required, and the financial budgetary provision with regard to acquisition of the land for the purpose of payment of compensation to the owners and also the project. Therefore it is contemplated in the 2nd part of subsection (2) of Section 20 that the "authority concerned" is required to take steps for commencement for its acquisition. Therefore if the proceedings are not commenced under the Land Acquisition Act within 10 years, the owner has a right to serve a notice and after the service of the notice upon the "authority concerned", the authority is required to take steps for commencement. So, as stated hereinabove, to commence the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, as contemplated in the first part of Section 20 of subsection (2) is different than that of taking steps for commencement for its acquisition which is contemplated in the 2nd part of sub-section (2) of Section 20. In the present case, from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the GHB, it cannot be said that after the service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 20, no steps were commenced for its acquisition. In fact, from the affidavit-in-reply and Sur-Rejoinder, it is clear that the GHB has taken steps by providing material and approaching the Collector for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question. There is a correspondence between the GHB and the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, i.e., for the purpose of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the circumstances, so far as the GHB is concerned, the designation/reservation in favour of GHB in the development plan is not lapsed as contended on behalf of the petitioners.

21. So far as Special Civil Applications No. 17409/2003, 17416/2003 and 17420/2003 are concerned, the petitioners therein have relied upon and based their case on the basis of the notices issued by them upon the respondent No.2 VUDA only. It is not the case of the petitioners in the Special Civil Applications that they have served any notice upon the GHB. As stated above,under sub-section (2) of Section, notices are required to be served upon the authority concerned, and "authority concerned" means "Gujarat Housing Board", as it is the Gujarat Housing Board which is required to take steps for commencement of acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act and not VUDA. Therefore the notice served upon VUDA will not be sufficient for the purpose of attracting the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 20 of theand therefore on serving the notice upon the VUDA, Area Development Authority only, the designation/reservation in favour of GHB will not lapse, and on this ground also the aforesaid Special Civil Applications fail.

21.1. It seems that, during the course of arguments, it was realised by the petitioners that they are likely to be failed for getting the designation lapsed as the notices were served by the petitioners upon VUDA and not upon GHB. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder the petitioners have come out with a case that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners have served a notice upon the GHB in Special Civil Application No. 17410 of 2003 and 17420 of 2003 and therefore it was argued on behalf of the petitioners of those Special Civil Applications that even in the aforesaid two cases as the notices were served upon the GHB by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners the designation would be lapsed. The said argument is required to be rejected outright, firstly the case of the petitioners in the Special Civil Application is upon notice issued by the petitioners under sub-section (2) of Section 20 upon the VUDA which is at Annexure 'D' to the petition. The petitioners cannot be permitted to improve their case by affidavit-in-rejoinder. Even considering the fact that assuming that one Vrajlal D. Patel has served a notice in the year 1995-96 upon the GHB, it is not shown what interest Vrajlal D. Patel had in the land in question. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the petitioners shows that even the petitioners were not sure with regard to the title of the land held by Vrajlal D. Patel as the petitioners have not purchased the land from said Vrajlal D. Patel, but it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the land from one Vasantlal Jhaverdas Shah and he might have purchased the land from Vrajlal D. Patel. So, the petitioners are also not sure whether Vrajlal D. Patel was the owner of the land in question or not. Even considering the notice served by the said Vrajlal D. Patel, it seems that the same is addressed to the Superintending Engineer, GHB, Vadodara. As per Section 112 of theall documents including the notices and orders required by the Town Planning Act or by any Rule or Regulation made thereunder to be served upon any person shall be deemed to be duly served whether document is to be served on a Government Department, Railway, Local Authority, Statutory Authority, Company, Corporation, Society or other Body, if the document is addressed to the Head of the Government Department, General Manager of the Railway, Secretary or Principal Officer of the Local Authority, Statutory Authority, Company, Corporation, Society or other Body at its Principal or Branch Officer or the Local or Registrar Office as the case may be and has either sent by registered post to such office or delivered at such office. Thus, what is contemplated under Section 112 of theis to address a notice to the Head of the authority and to be served at its Principal or Branch Officer. In the case of Gujarat Housing Board, Housing Commissioner of the GHB is Head of the Department. So, the notice was required to be addressed to Housing Commissioner. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that there is a valid notice served upon the GHB as required under Section 112 of the. Thus, assuming that Vrajlal D. Patel had served a notice upon the GHB, it cannot be said to be a valid notice served upon the GHB warranting lapsing of the designation/reservation which was in favour of the GHB. Though as stated hereinabove notice was allegedly issued by Vrajlal D. Patel the same cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of the present Special Civil Application as it was not the case of the petitioner in the Special Civil Application and the case of the petitioner was not based upon the notice issued by the said Vrajlal D. Patel.”

13. In the above set of facts and circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University (supra) would not take the case of the petitioner any further as in the instant case, no notice as provided under Section 20(2) of theis given to the authority concerned i.e. Vadodara Municipal Corporation. Similarly, the decision of Gujarat Housing Board (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would not apply as the facts were different and in those case, the notices were served, wherein in this case, notices were not served as provided under Section 20(2) of theand therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant as far as the Resolution passed by the VUDA is concerned, the same is of no consequence as the same has authority, for which, the reservation is made i.e. Vadodara Municipal Corporation has objected to the same and hence, the same is not necessary to be dealt with in detail.

14. In the case on hand also, no notice as provided under Section 20(2) of thehas been served by the original owners and the present owner has come into picture only on 7.2.2012 and as stated earlier, the notice given by the present appellant on 13.8.2014 is a premature notice.

15. In facts of this case, as narrated hereinabove, the earlier notice has not been given to the authority who is supposed to acquire the land as provided under Section 20(2) of the. Subsequent notice dated 13.8.2024 is a premature notice which is issued by the appellant before expiry of 10 years. In light of the aforesaid facts, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant on lapse of reservation would not apply to the present case and even while considering the subsequent facts, no different view is required to be taken in this appeal. Lapsing of reservation takes place only after the period of 10 years from the date of final development plan is over and therefore, the provision of Section 20(2) of thewould trigger only when the said period of 10 years is over and the notice is given as provided under Section 20 of the. If any variation is to be made before expiry of the period of 10 years, the same is provided only under Section 19 of theand the provisions of Section 20 ipso facto shall not apply.

16. Consequently the Letters Patent Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and we confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, there shall be no order as to costs.