Holding

The land stands de‑reserved/de‑designated after the expiry of the ten‑year period; a revised development plan does not extend that period.

Summary

The State of Gujarat reserved land for public purposes under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and published a final development plan on 3 March 1986. The ten‑year period for acquisition expired on 2 March 1996, but a draft revised plan was issued on 20 February 1996. Landowners served notices under Section 20(2) demanding acquisition. The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to acquire within ten years caused the land to be de‑reserved/de‑designated and whether the issuance of a revised plan automatically extended the ten‑year period. Reading Sections 20 and 21 together with Sections 12 and 17, the Court held that Section 20(2) creates a legal fiction whereby the designation lapses if no acquisition is effected within six months of a notice, and that the phrase “so far as may be” in Section 21 does not extend the ten‑year period. Consequently, the land stood de‑reserved/de‑designated upon expiry of the specified period, and the revised plan did not revive the designation. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The effect of failure to acquire land within the ten‑year period prescribed under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
Whether the issuance of a draft revised development plan under Section 21 extends the ten‑year period for acquisition.
The interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 in conjunction with Sections 12 and 17 of the Act.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976s. 12, s. 17, s. 20, s. 21
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

land reservationde‑reservationGujarat Town Planning ActSection 20Section 21land acquisitionstatutory interpretationlegal fictionten‑year periodrevision of development plan

Judgment

SHA VNAGAR UNIVERSITY A
v.
PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT, LTD. AND ORS.

DECEMBER 3, 2002

[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., K.G, BALAKRISHNAN AND B
S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

land laws:

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
F
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:
G
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.

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
development, evidently in relation thereto the State will be entitled to exercise
F 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. LTO. 519

"
powers by the State as regards acquisition of the land for the purpose of A
carrying out the development of the area in the manner provided for therein.
In the event the land referred to under Section 20(1) thereof is not acquired
or proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced and
further in the event an owner or a person interested in the land serves a notice
in the manner specified therein, certain consequences ensue, namely, the
designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. A. legal fiction, B
therefore, has been created in the said provision. (530-G, H; 531-A]

1.3. The relevant provisions of the Act are absolutely clear, unambiguous
and implicit. A plain meaning of the said provisions, would lead to only one
conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued by the owner of the C
land or other person interested therein asking the authority to acquire the
land upon expiry of the period specified therein viz. ten years from the date of
issuance of final development plan and in the event pursuant to or in
furtherance thereof no action for acquisition thereof is taken, the designation
shall lapse. (531-F, G]
D
1.4. It is true that Section 21 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation
on the part of the State and the appropriate auth()rlties to revise the
development plan and for the said purpose Sections 9 to 20 'so far as may be'
would be applicable thereto, but thereby the rights of the owners in terms of
Section 20(2) are not taken away. Only because the provision of Section 20
has been referred to therein, it would not mean that thereby the Legislature E
contemplated that the time often years specified by the Legislature for the
purpose of acquisition of the land would get automatically extended. Following
the principle of interpretation that all words must be given its full effect, the
words "so far as may be" applied to such revision must be given full effect to.
(533-B-D) p
1.5. The words "so far as may be" indicated the intention of the
Legislature to the effect that by providing revision of final development plan
from time to time and at least once in ten years, only the procedure or
preparation thereof as provided therein, is required to be followed. Such
procedural requirements must be followed so far as it is reasonably possible. G
Section 21 of the Act, does not and cannot mean that the substantial right
conferred upon the owner of the land or the person interested therein shall
be taken away. It is not and cannot be the intention of the Legislature that
what is given by one hand should be taken away by the other. )533-D-F]

1.6. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.CR.

A Section 20(2), the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only because a
draft revised plan is m~de, would automatically give rise to revival thereof.
Section 20 does not manifest a Legislative intent to curtail or take away the
right acquired by a landowner under Section 22 vf getting the land defreezed.
(533-G)

B 1.7. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must
be strictly construed. When a statutory authority is required to do a thing in
a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The
State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature
of statui.e. They must act within the four-corners thereof. By reason of the
C provision of the Act, a reasonable restriction, has been imposed upon the
owner on the user of his property. An owner of a property, subject to reasonable
restrictions which may be imposed by the Legislature, is entitled to enjoy the
l>roperty in any manner he likes. A right to use a property in a particular
manner or in other words a restriction imposed on user thereof except in the
mode and manner laid down under statute would not be presumed.
D (534-D; 529-G; 529-C]

1.8. However, despite statutory lapse of designation of the land, the State
is not denuded of its power of eminent domain under the general law, namely,
Land Acquisition Act in the event an exigency arises therefor. (534-E)

E KL. Gupta and Ors. v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.,
(1968) 1 SCR 274; Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manila/
Gordhandas and Ors., (1996) ll SCC 482 and Murari and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors., [1997) 1SCC15, distin.guished.

F Municipal Corporation of Grerater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants'
Association and Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 55, referred to.

2.1. It is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same
should be read as a whole chapter by chapter, section by section and words by
words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary when
G there is ambiguity, obscurity, or-inconsistency therein and not otherwise. An
effort must be made to give effect to all parts of statute and unless absolutely
necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or redundant. True
meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what it
provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme oflaw. (528-F-G)

H 2.2. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD 521
be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In A
other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to
its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it
is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible,
absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconciliable with the rest of
the statute. 1528-H; 529-AI
B
2.3. A beneficient provision of legislation must be liberally construed
so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. 1529-BI

legislation and Interpretation by Jagdish Swarup, page 479 referred
to.
c
3. The purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is
well-known. When a legal fiction is created, it must be given its full effect.
1531-B]

M Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of D
India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr., (1994] 2 SCC 323; Indian Oil
Corporation limited v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Ors. etc., (19981 5
SCC 738; Valtas Limited Bombay v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) Supp. 2
SCC 498; Harish Tandon v. Addi. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and
Ors., (1995] l SCC 537 and G. Viswanathan etc. v. Hon'bleSpeaker, Tamil
Nadu legislative Assembly, Madras and Anr., [1996) 2 sec 353, referred to. E

- East End Dwelling Co. ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All
ER 587, referred to.

4. When a public functionary is required to do a certain thing within a
specified time, the same is ordinarily directory but when consequence for F
inaction on the part of the Statutory authorities within such specified time is
expressly provided, it must be held to be imperative. (534-F]

Datta/rays v. State of Bombay, AIR (1952) SC 181, referred to.

Sutherland, Statutory Construction 3rd edition, Vo/.3 p.102; Crawford G
on Statutory Construction, Article 269 p.535; Craies on Statute law VIJI
Edn. page 262 and Interpretation and Application of Statutes by Reed
Dickerson page 7, referred to.

5. A decision is an authority for which it is decided and not what can
logically be deduced therefrom. A little difference in facts or additional facts H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. [540-F]

Smt. Ram Rakhi v. Union of India and Ors. AIR (2002) Delhi 458; Delhi
Administration (NCT of Delhi) ·v. Manoharlal, AIR (2002) SC 3088; Haryana
Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Mis. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr., JT 2002
1SC482 and Dr. Nalini Mahajan etc. v. Director ofIncome Tax (Investigation)
B and Ors., (2002) 257 ITR 123, referred to.

6. The contention that various other points had been raised before High
Court which were not taken into consideration, cannot be gone into in as much
as assuming the same to be correct, the remedy of the appellants would lie in
filing appropriate application for review before the High Court. [541-A]
c
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., AIR (1982)
SC 1249, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8003 of2002.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2000 of the High Court of
Gujarat in SCA 1032 of 1996.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1539, 1540, 1541 of2001 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8004-.
E 8012 of2002.

Kirit N. Rawal, SG, Gopal Subramanium, Bhaskar Tanna, T.R.
Andhyarujina, Ashok H. Desai, P.N. Mishra, Yatin Oza, H.N. Salve, S.H.
Sanjanwala, S. Muralidhar, Rashmin Chaya, Umesh Trivedi, Shreys Jayasimha, •
Anip Sachthey, Ms. H. Wahi, Janak Shah, V.D. Khanna, Jatin Zeveri, P.H.
F Parekh, Rohit Alex, Huzefa Ahmadi, Amit Dhingra, Arun Francis, Ms. Sweety
Manchanda, Ms. J.S. Wad, Ashish Wad and Ms. Niharika Bahl, for Mis. J.S.
Wad & Co., Ms. Alka Agarwal, for M/s. l.M. Nanavati Associates, B.V. Desai,
Ms. Vanita Mehta, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Anu Mohla and M.N. Shroff for the
appearing parties.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted in special leave petitions.

This batch of appeals arising out of common Judgment and Order of the

..
Gujarat High Court at Ahmedal>!td'fo SCA Nos. 10108/94, 4427/92, 4733/92,
H 4847 /92, 3537 /95, 8882/99, 8~88/99, 6461196 EJtd 6519/98 involving the. question

t'
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY 1·. PA LIT ANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD. [M.B. SHAH, J.J 523
as regard to interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning A
and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity. hereinafter referred to as the
'Said Act'), \Vere taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by
this com1non judg1nent.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
B
The State of Gujarat in exercise of its power conferred upon it under
Section 20 of the said Act reserved certain areas of which the respondents
herein amongst others are the owners.

On or about 3.3.1986 a development plan was finally published in terms
of the provisions of the said Act, and the period of I 0 years therefrom lapsed C
on 2.3.1996. A revised Development plan however came into being on 20th
February, 1996. It is not in dispute that respondents who claim ownership of
the lands in question issued notices in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 20
of the said Act, asking the State Government to acquire the properties in
terms thereof.
D
The short question which arises for consideration in these matters is as
•
to whether by reason of inaction on the part of the State and its authorities
under t~e Town Planning Act to acquire the lands for a period of more than
10 years, in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite
service of notice, the same stood de-reserved/de-designated or in view of E
issuance of draft revised plan under Section 21 thereof, the term of 10 years

- stood extended?

The contention of the respondents before the High Court was that on
a plain reading of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, it would appear
that the appellants were under a statutory obligation to take steps for F
acquisition of land on receipt of the requisite notice in terms of sub-section
(2) of Section 20 of the Act and on their failure to do so the reservation/
designation in respect of land in question would lapse.

Per contra the contention of the Appellant was that the provisions of
Section 20(2) of the Act although enables service of notice by land owners G
for acquisition within six moths from the expiry of I 0 years from the date of
final development plan but the same would not come into operation when the
final development plan is in the process of revision under Section 21 of the
said Act read with sub~section 1 of section 20 thereof.
H
The High Court upon taking into consideration the provisions of the
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A said Act and upon consideration of the rival contentions raised therein came
to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put
an embargo on the application of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act.

The appellants were represented by Mr. Kirit N. Raw al. Solicitor General
and Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the Gujarat
B University and Mr. Tanna for the South Gujarat University. The contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant was that having regard to the scope
and purport of the said Act, the High Court must be held to have erred in
so f~r as it failed to take into consideration that the objects of an integrated,
incorporated and interdependent development plan, cannot be fully achieved
C within a period of 10 years and in that view of the matter when steps are taken
for revision of the final development plan, the period specified in sub-section
(2) of Section 20 w.ould get automatically extended. Strong reliance in this
behalf has been placed on K.L. Gupta and Ors. v. The Bombay Municipal
Corporation and Ors., [1968] l SCR 274, Ahmedabad Urban Development
Authority v. Manila/ Gordhandas and Ors., [1996] 11 SCC 482 and Murari
D and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] I SCC 15.

On the other hand, the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondents led by Mr. Ashok Desai the learned senior counsel is that in the
event the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 as suggested
E by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the same· would render
sub-section 2 of Section 20 otiose and redundant. According to learned
counsel the right of an owner of the land cannot be kept under suspension
for a long time and the period of I 0 years specified by the legislature must •
be held to be a reasonable one, and thus by n<? stretch of imagination only
by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act, the period
F specified therein can be extended. Strong reliance in support of the said
contention has been placed on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and Ors., [1988] Supp. SCC 55.

Mr. Desai would urge that the expression 'so far as may be' occurring
G in Section 21 of the Act must be given a proper meaning and thus in the event
the interpretation of the provisions put-forth by the learned counsel for the
appellant is accepted, the same will lead to an anomalous and absurd situation;
which was not contemplated by the Legislature.

Reliance in this connection has been placed in The Land Acquisition
H Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H Narayanaiah and Ors., [ 1976] 4
SCC9. ..
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,.. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD [M.B SHAH . .I] 525
... Before we advert to the rival contentions, as noticed hereinbefore, \Ve A
may look to the relevant provision of the said Act.

The preamble suggests that the said Act \vas enacted to consolidate
and amend the law relating to making and execution of .development plans and
town planning schemes in the State of Gujarat. It is not in dispute that the
said Act came into force with effect from 1.2.1978 in terms of an appropriate B
notification issued in this behalf under sub-section (3) of Section I thereof.

Section 2 of the said Act contains definition clause. 'Development Plan'
has been defined in Section 2(x) to mean a plan for development or
redevelopment or improvement of a development area.
c
Section 3, postulates issuance of a notification by the State Government
'pecifying a development area.

In term of Section 4 of the said Act, the State Government by issuing
a notification is empowered to exclude the whole or part of a development D
area from the operation thereof. Section 5 provides for constitution of Area
Development Authorities consisting of two Nominees of the Government and
Local Authorities as specified therein. The State Government in terms of
Section 6 of the Act is empowered to designate any Local Authority
functioning in the development area as an Area Development Authority in
State. The State Government has been conferred with the powers, which E
amongst others, include preparation of Development Plan, Town Planning
Schemes and to control the development activities in terms of Section 7 of
the Act. Section 9 provides that not later than three years after the declaration
of such area as a development area or within such time as the State Government,
may from time to time, extend, the authority shall prepare and submit to the p
State Government a draft development plan for the whole or any part oi the
development area". The State Government on the failure of development
authority to prepare such a plan is required to do so within a period of three
years thereafter. A draft development plan has to be kept open for public
inspection in terms of Section 10. Section 12 provides for the contents of draft
development plan, the relevant portions whereof read as under:- G
"Contents of draft de\'elopment plan :

(I) 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 H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A carried out.

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

(a) xxxx

B (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, playgrounds,
C stadium, open spaces, dairies and for such other purposes as
may, from time to time, be specified by the State· Government;
(c) xxxx
(d) transport and communications, such as roads, highways,
parkways, railways, waterways, canals and airport, including their
D extension and development.
(e) xxxx
(f) reservation of land for community facilities and services;
(g) JOOOC

E (h) XlOO(

(i) XlOO(

(j) XlOO(

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

(m) xxxx
G (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 pr other purposes as may from
time to· time be approved by the area development authority or
H as may·be directed by the State Government in this behalf."
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY'· PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD. [M.B. SHAH, l.l 527
Section 13 specifies publication of draft development plan for the purpose A
of inviting suggestions and objections from public and affected parties, which
are required to be considered in terms of Section 14 thereof. Necessary
modifications may be made therein as provided under Section 15. A modified
draft plan prepared in terms of Section 15 is required to be submitted to the
State Government for sanction, which in exercise of its power under Section B
17 of the Act may grant the same with further notifications as deemed
necessary, after publishing the same again inviting suggestions and shall be
notified in the official gazette.

In terms of sub clause (d) of sub-section(!) of Section 17, the sanction
accorded to the draft development plan by the State Government shall be C
notified in the Official Gazette, and on such sanction, it shall be ·called "the
final development plan" which shall come into force from a date to be notified,
but the same shali be not earlier than one month from the date of publication
of such sanction. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 requires the State Government
to take certain precautions with regard to the reservation of land for specific D
( purposes mentioned in Section 12, but only on the satisfaction that the land,
r so reserved, is likely to be acquired within ten years from the publication of
final development plan.

Sub-section (2) of Section 17 reads as under :-

"17(2) Where the draft development plan submitted by an area E
development authority or, as the case may be, the authorized 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 F
1
.., 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."

Under Section 18, the State Government has been empowered even to G
amend the final development .plan, by extending or reducing its area. Under
Section 19, the State Government is empowered to vary the final development
plan, but, only after inviting suggestions and objections in the manner laid
down therein. Section 20 provides for acquisition of land designated or
reserved for specified purposes mentioned in Section 12. As the said provision H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A is material for thikl case, the same is reproduced hereunder :-

"Section 20 Acquisition of land :

(I) The area development authority or any other authority for whose
purpose land is designated in the final development plan for any
B purpose specified in clause (b), clause (d), clause (f), clause (k), clause
(n) or clause (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 12, may acquire the land
either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.

(2) If the land referred to in sub-section (I) is not acquired by agreement
C 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, are not commenced within such p~riod, 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
D 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 land
as aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed."

Section 21 of the Act provides for the revision of development plan and
reads as under :-
E
"Section 21. Revision of development plan :

At least 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
F the provisions of Sections 9 to 20, shall, so far as may be, apply to
such revision."

It "is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should
be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and words
by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary
G when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or inconsistency therein and not otherwise.
An effort must ue made to give effect to all parts of statute and unless
absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or
redundant.

H True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY"· PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD. [M.B SHAH. J] 529
of what provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. A
Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be
enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In
other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to
its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it
is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, B
absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the
statute.

It is also well settled that a beneficient provision of legislation must be
liberally construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate C
it.

An owner ·of a property, subject to reasonable restrictions which may
be imposed by the Legislature, is entitled to enjoy the property in any manner
he likes. A right to use a property in a particular manner or in other words
a restriction imposed on user thereof except in the mode and manner laid D
down under statute would not be presumed.

In Legislation and Interpretation by Jagdish Swarup, at page 479, it is
stated

"We ought not to assume without the clearest language that the
E
legislature intends to destroy common law rights. The presumption is
that the legislature intends not to interfere with any legal rights or any
legitimate expectations of any person whatsoev-er. Rights, whether
private or public, cannot be taken away or hampered by implication
from the language employed in a statute, unless ihe legislature clearly
and distinctly authorises the doing of a thing which is physically F
inconsistent with the continuance 0f an existing right. In order to take
away the right it is not sufficient to show that the thing sanctioned
in the Act, it done, will of a slleer physical necessity, put an end to
that right; it must also be shown that the legislature has authorised
the thing to be done at all events, and irrespective of its possible G
interference with existing rights. An Act should be so interpreted as
in no respect to interfere with or prejudice a clear private right or title
unless that, priv.ate right or title is taken away per directum"

By reason of the provision of the said Act, a reasonable restriction, has
been imposed upon the owner on the user of his property. In terms of Section H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 12 of the said Act, town planning is contemplated through preparation of
draft development plan which contains not only proposals for designating
certain area for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural or recreational
purposes but also for the purposes for maintaining environment and ecological
balance by setting up zoological gardens, green belts, natural reserves and
sanctuaries . In terms of such development plan ·reservation of certain land
B for public use is also provided . From the relevant provisions of the said Act,
as noticed hereinbefore, it is absolutely clear that in terms thereof the State
Government is made the ultimate authority to publish a development plan,
inter alia, providing for designation or reservation of the land. The State
Government while arriving at its ~onclusion as regards public interest involved
C in the matter is required' to arrive at its satisfaction on objective basis as
provided in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 17 to the effect that the lands
in respect whereof reservation is proposed to be made can be acquired for
the fulfilment of the object therefor either by agreement or compulsory
acquisition within the period specified therein. It has not been disputed
before us nor is it necessary to consider in the facts and circumstances of
·D this case as to whether establishment of the educational institutions or
universities would be covered by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section
12 thereof?

Sections 20 and 21 of the said Act are required to be read conjunctively
with Sections 12 and 17. We may notice that clause (k) of sub-section (2) of
E Section 12 does not find mention in sub-section (2) of Section 17 as regards
proposed reservation for the ·State and other statutory authorities but clauses
(n) and (b) of sub-section (2) of S·~ction 12 are specifically mentioned in
Section 20. In Section 20, provisions of clauses (b ), (d), (t), (k) and (o) of sub-
section (2) of Section 12 have specifically been mentioned. The High Court
F has proceeded on the basis that the words 'designation' or 'reservation' are
interchangeable for the purpose of the Act. The said finding of the High
Court is not in question.

Whereas in terms of Sections 12 and 17 of the said Act, the reservation
and designation have been provided, sub-section (I) of Section 20 thereof
G only enables the authorities to acquire the land designated or reserved for the
purpose specifically mentioned in clauses (b) and (n) of sub-section (2) of
Section 12 as also other clauses specified therefor eitner by acquisition or
agreement or in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-
section (1) of Section 20 is merely an enabling provision.

H Sub-section (2) of Section 20, however, carves out an exception to the
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY 1·. PALITANA SUGAR rvtJLL PVT.LTD [M.B. SHAH. J J 531

exercise of powers by the State as regards acquisition of the land for the A
purpose of 'carrying out the develop111ent of the area in the 1nanner provided
for therein: a bare reading \vhereof leaves no 1nanner of doubt that in the
event the land referred to under sub-section (I) of Section 20 thereof is not
acquired or proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not con11nenced
and further in the event an owner or a person interested in the land serves
a notice in the nianner specified therein, certain consequences ensue, namely, B
the designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. A legal fiction,
therefore, has been created in the said provision.

The purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well-
known. When a legal fiction is created, it must be given its full effect. In East C
End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All.E.R 587,
Lord Asquith, J. stated the law in the following terms:-

"If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you
must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the
consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had D
in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.
One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents.
The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it
does not say that having done so, you must cause or pennit your
imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of
that state of affairs." E
The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in M. Venugopal v.
Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnan1,
A.P. and Anr. [1994] 2 SCC 323. See also Indian Oil Co1poration limited v.
Chief Inspector of Factories and Ors.etc., [1998] 5 SCC 738, Voltas limited,
Bombay v. Union of India and Ors.,[1995] Supp. 2 SCC 498, Harish Tandon F
v. Addi. District Magistrate, Allahabad, UP. and Ors. [1995] l SCC 537 and
G. Viswanathan etc. v. Hon 'ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Madras and Anr., [1996] 2 SCC 353.

The relevant provisions of the Act are absolutely clear, unambiguous G
and implicit. A plain meaning of the said provisions, in our considered view,
would lead to only one conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued
by the owner of the land or other person interested therein asking the
authority to acquire the land upon expiry of the period specified therein viz.
ten years from the date of issuance offinijl development plan and in the event
pursuant to or in furtherance thereof no action for-acquisition thereof is taken, H
532 SUPREME COURT Rl::PORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the designation shall lapse.

This Court in Municipal Corporation q{Greater Bo111bay's case (supra),
in no uncertain terms while construil1g the pr·ovisions of Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 held the period of ten
years as reasonable in the following words :·
B
"While the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the words 'six months from the date of service of such notice'·
in Section 127 of the Act were not susceptible of a literal construction,
must be accepted, it must be borne in mind that the period of six
months provided by Section 127 upon the expiry of which the
c reservation of the land under a Development Plan lapses, is a valuable
safeguard to the citizen against arbitrary and irrational executive action.
Section 127 of the Act is a fetter upon the power of eminent domain.
By enacting Section 127 the legislature has struck a balance between
the competing claims of the interests of the general public as regards
D the rights of a11 individual."

It was observed that :

"The Act lays down the principles of fixation by providing first, by
the proviso to Section 126(2) that no such declaration under sub-
section (2) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date
E of publication of the draft regional plan, development plan or any
other plan, secondly, by enacting sub-section (4) of Section 126 that
if a declaration is not made within the period referred to in sub-section
(2), the State Government may make a fresh declaration but, in that
event, the market value of the land shall be the market value at the
F date of the declaration under Section 6 and not the market value at
the date of the notification under Section 4, and thirdly, by Section
127 that if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
in any development plan is not acquired by agreement within l 0 years
from ~he date on which a final regional plan or development plan
comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land
G under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such
period, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation,
allotment or designation and become available to the owner for the
purpose of development on the failure of the Appropriate Authority
to initiate any steps for its acquisition within a period of six months
H from the date of service of a notice by the owner or any person
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD. [M.B. SHAH. J] 533
interested in the land. It cannot be doubted that a period of 10 years A
is long enough., The Development or the Planoing Authority must
take recourse. to acquisition with some amount of promptitude in order
that the compensation paid to the expropriated owner bears a just
relation to the real value of the land as otherwise, the compensation
paid for the acquisition would be wholly illusory. Such fetter on B
statutory powers is in the interest of the general public and the
conditions subject to which they can be exercised must be strictly
followed."

It is true that Section 21 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on the part
of the State and the appropriate authorities to revise the development plan C
and for the said purpose Sections 9 to 20 'so far as may be' would be
applicable thereto, but thereby the rights of the owners in terms of sub-
section (2) of Section 20 are not taken away.

The question, however, is as to whether only because the provision of
Section 20 has been referred to therein; would it mean that thereby the D
Legislature contemplated that the time often years specified by the Legislature
for the purpose of acquisition of the land would get automatically extended?
The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. Following
the principle of interpretation that all words must be given its full effect, we
must also give full effect to the words "so far as may be" applied to such
revision. E
The said words indicate the intention of the Legislature to the effect
that by providing revision of final development plan from time to time and at
least once in ten years, only the procedure or preparation thereof as provided
therein, is required to be followed. Such procedural requirements must be F
followed so far as it is reasonably possible. Section 21 of the Act, in our
opinion, does not and cannot mean that the substantial right conferred upon
the owner of the land or the person interested therein shall be taken away.
It is not and cannot be the intention of the Legislature that what is given by
one hand should be taken away by the other.
G
Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of sub-
section (2) of Section 20, the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only
because a draft revised plan is made, would automatically give rise to revival
thereof. Section 20 does not manifest a legislative intent to curtail or take
away the right acquired by a land-owner under Section 22 of getting the land
defreezed. In the event the submission of the learned Solicitor General is H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A accepted the same would completely render the provisions of Section 20(2)
otiose and redundant.

Sub-section (I) of Section 20, as noticed herein before, provides for 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
B Acquisition Act If by reason of a revised plan, any other area is sought to
be brought within the purview of the development plan, evidently in relation
thereto the State will be entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under sub-section
(I) of Section 20 but it will bear repetition to state that the same would not
confer any other or further power upon the State to get the duration of
C 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 first final development
plan. The power of the State enumerated under sub-section (I) of Section 20
does not become ipso facto applicable in the event of issuance of a revised
plan as the said provision has been specifically mentioned therein so that the
D State may use the same power in a changed situation.

The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be
strictly construed. It is well-settled that when a statutory authority is required
to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner
or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act
E are only creature of statute. They must act within the four-comers thereof

There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
Despite statutory lapse of designation of the land, the State is not denuded
of its power of eminent domain under the general law, namely, Land Acquisition
Act in the event an exigency arises therefor. -
F
We are not oblivious of the law that when a public functionary is
required to do a certain thing within a specified time, the same is ordinarily
directory but it is equally well settled that when consequence for inaction on
the part of the Statutory authorities within such specified time is expressly
G provided, it must be held to be imperative.

In Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd edition, Vo/.3 at p. I 02 the
law is stated as follows :-

" .... unless the nature of the act to be performed, or the phraseology
H of the statute is such that the designation of time must be considered
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY>. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD. [M.B. SHAH, J.] 535

a limitation of the power of the Officer." A
At p. I 07 it is pointed out that a statutory direction to private individuals
should generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is just
the opposite to that which obtains with respect to public officers.
Again, at p. I 09, it is pointed out that often the question as to whether
a mandatory or directory construction should be given to a statutory B
provision may be determined by an expression in the statute itself of
the result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision. At
p.111 it is stated as follows :

"As a corollary of the rule outlined above, the fact that no
consequences of non-compliance are stated in the statute, has been C
considered as a factor tending towards a directory construction. But
this is only an element to be considered, and is by no means
conclusive."

[See also Crawford on Statutory Construction , Article 269 at p.535)•
D
In Dattatrays v. State of Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 181), it was held as
under :-

"Generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public
duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative.
When the provisions of statute relate to the performance of a public E
duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in
neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or
injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with
the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of
the Legislature, it has been the practice of the courts to hold such
provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the F
validity of the acts done."

In Craies on Statute Law VIII Edn. at page 262, it is stated thus :-

"It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention
of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the G
statute to be construed that is each case you must look to the
subject-matter, consider the importance of the provision and the relation
of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the
Act, and upon a review of the case in that aspect decide whether the
enactment is what is called imperative or only directory." H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A In the aforementioned backdrop, we may usefully refer to the decision
of this Court in The land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board,
Bangalore's case (st!pra) wherein it has been stated :-

"There was some argument on the meaning of the words "so far as
they are applicable", used in Section 27 of the Bangalore Act. These
B words cannot be changed into "in so far as they are specifically
mentioned" with regard to the procedure in the Acquisition Act. On
the other hand, the obvious intention, in using these words, was to
exclude only those provisions of the Acquisition Act which become
inapplicable because of any special procedure prescribed by the

c Bangalore Act (e.g. Section 16) corresponding with that found in the
Acquisition Act (e.g. Section 4(1)). These words bring in or make
applicable, so far as this is reasonably possible, general provisions
such as Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act. They cannot be reasonably
construed to exclude the application of any general provisions of the
Acquisition Act. They amount to laying down the principle that what
D is not either expressly, or, by a necessary implication, excluded must
be applied. It is surprising to find misconstruction of what did not
appear to us to be reasonably open to more than one interpretation."

We may at this juncture usefully quote the words of Oliver Wendell
Holmes : "It is sometimes more important to emphasize the obvious than to
E elucidate the obscure". (See the Interpretation and Application of Statutes by
Reed Dickerson at page 7).

The decision of this Court in KL. Gupta's case (supra), whereupon the
learned coun.sel for the Appellant strongly relied upon, may in the
aforementioned backdrop, be considered. In that case, the vires of the
F provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Bombay Town Planning Act,
1954 were in question. Although the constitutionality of Section 17 of the Act
was also questioned before this Court, at the hearing the same was given up.
The Court specifically noticed so stating :-

"Towards the end of the hearing counsel for the petitioners submitted
G
that s.17 of the Act might be left out of consideration for the purpose
of these petitions and learned counsel for the respondents were
agreeable to this course. We, therefore, do not express our views
about the validity or otherwise of this section."

In that case the rights of the owners accrued to them having regard to
H
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY 1·. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD. [M.B_ SHAH, J.] 537

the inaction on the part of the State and other authorities despite rights to A
the owners of land as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the
Act were not in question. Section 17 of the Act was in pari 111ateria with
Section 21 of the said Act. The scheme of the provisions of the Bombay Act
as regards designation or reservation of land for ten years and further right
of revision after every ten years was considered having regard to the challenges B
made therein that thereby the State was conferred with· a power which was
unreasonable and thus violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution
of India.

The observations made by this Court should be understood in that
context. In that case the rival contention as regards interpretation of the C
statute was not the subject-matter of the consideration of the Constitution
Bench.

The scheme of the Act was noticed thus :-

"The idea behind this sub-section is that if any land is to be set D
apart for public purposes such as parks etc. mentioned in cl.(b) of s.
7 or any other public purpose which might be approved by a local
authority or directed by the State Government in terms of cl. (e) of s.
7, the State Government must examine whether it would be possible
for the local authority to be able to acquire such land by private
agreement or compul.sory purchase within a period of ten years. This E
acts as a check on the local authority making too ambitious proposals
for designating lands for public purposes which they may never have
the means to fulfil. It is obvious that the local authority must be given
a reasonable time for the purpose and the legislature thought that a
period of ten years was a sufficient one. S.11 (I) empowers the local F

- authority to acquire any land designated in the development plan for
a purpose specified in els. (b), (c), (d) or (e) of s. 7 either by agreement
or under the Land Acquisition Act. Under sub-s. (2) of s. 11 the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as amended by the
Schedule to the Act are to apply to all such acquisitions. The Schedule G
to the Act shows that s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is to stand
amended for the acquisition under this Act with regard to the
compensation to be awarded. In fact it is for the benefit of the person
whose land is acquired, as he can get the market value of the land at
the date of the publication of the declaration under s. 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act in place of s.4. Sub-s. (3) provides that if the designated H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A land is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date
specified under sub-s. (3) of s. I 0 or if proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, the owner
or any person interested in the land may serve r.cticc to the local
authority and if within six months from the date of such notice the
land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its
B acquisition, the designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. This
provision again is for the benefit of the owner of the land for unless
the land is acquired or steps taken in that behalf within the fLXed
limits of time, he ceases to be bound by the designation of his land
as given in the development plan. " (Emphasis Supplied)
c
What was emphasised in that case is unreasonableness of Section 17
of the Act which, as indicated hereinbefore, was not pressed at a later stage.
This Court had no occasion to consider the conflicting rights of the parties
under sub-section (3) of Section 10 vis._a- vis Section 17 of the Bombay Act.
What was considered and upheld by the Court was the contention that by
D taking the recourse to Section 17 more than once acquisition might be held
up indefinitely from generation to generation.

As the facts of the present case stand absolutely on a different footing
and this Court in KL. Gupta's case (supra) was not called upon to answer
E the same, the same cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that
by reason of Section 21 of the Act, the designation of the land although
lapsed in terms of Section 20, the same would get automatically extended or
revised once a revised plan is made. This Court in K.L. Gupta's case merely
held that the land which is reserved for ten years can be subjected to further
reservation for any period till it is actually required for its town planning
F activities leading to revision of development plans from time to time. Therein,
this Court did not negate the right of owners. Such a right of the land-owners, ...
as noticed hereinbefore, has been specifically acknowledged. Nowhere it was
stated that valuable right conferred on a land-owner of getting his land
reserved by serv_ing notice would be defeated or taken away merely because
G a revised development plan was in the offing.

The question raised in the said case, thus, was absolutely different. It
is interesting to note that the law of the land was considered therein, as it
then stood by observing :-

H "No one can be heard to say that the local authority after making up
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY 1·. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT.LTD. [M.B. SHAH. J.] 539

its mind to acquire land for a public purpose must do so within as A
short a period of time as possible. It would not be reasonable to place
such a restriction on the po\ver of the local authority \Vh ich is out to
create better living conditions for 1nillions of people in a vast area."

However. we may notice that the Parliament amended the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 in terms whereof, inter alia, Section 11 A was inserted. B
In the Objects and Reasons of the said Act, it was stated :-

"With the enormous expansion of the State's role in promoting
public welfare and economic development since independence,
acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialization, building of
institutions, etc., has become far more numerous than ever before. c
While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced
with the rights of the individual. whose land is acquired, thereby often
depriving him of his means of livelihood. Again, acquisition of land
for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as
acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. The individual D
and institutions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property
rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping
in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the
community. The pendency of acquisition proceedings for long period
often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic
the scale of compensation offered to them." E
The decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority's case
(supra), in our opinion, has again no application to the fact of the present
case. The fact of the matter therein was completely different. The Gujarat
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, which is now in operation in the
State of Gujarat, came into force from 30th November, 1978, prior to which the F
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was applicable to the State of Gujarat. Prior
to coming into force of the Gujarat Act, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
submitted the development plan on 15th January, 1976 which came to be
sanctioned by the State Government on 12th August, 1983. It was held by
this Court that the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation on G
15th January, 1976, could not have been sanctioned under the provisions of
the Gujarat Act on 12th August, 1983 ignoring the fact that meanwhile a
comprehensive draft development plan had been prepared and submitted by
the Corporation on 23rd July, 1981 which also came to be sanctioned en 2nd
November, 1986 and which included the areas covered by the earlier illegally
sanctioned plan on 12th August, 1983. In the aforementioned peculiar facts, H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the question arose as to from which date the period of ten years had to be
reckoned for application of Section 20(2) of the Act. This Court answered the
aforementioned question in the folluwing ttr111s :-

"As in the present case the only question which is to be answered
is as to with effect from which date I 0 years period shall be counted,
B it has to be decided as to which date shall be deemed to be the date
of coming into force of the final development plan, so far the area
within the Corporation is concerned. The notification dated 2.11.1987,
had been issued by the State Government covering the area notified
on 12.8.1983, several years before, the issuance of notices by the writ
petitioners. The notification dated 2.11.1987, was neither questioned
c by the writ petitioners-respondents nor could have been questioned,
according to us. When power has been vested in the appellant to
prepare a d_raft development plan and there being no bar to include
in the said draft development plan even area, for which an earlier draft
development plan had already been sanctioned, then the draft
D development plan which was sanctioned and notified on 2.11.1987,
shall be deemed to be the final development plan within the meaning
of Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. As such the period
of IO years has to be calculated and counted with reference to 3.12.1987,
the date when such final development was to come into force."

E Yet again the decision of this Court in Murari's case (supra) has no
application to the fact of this matter. The question which arose for consideration
therein was as to whether in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act any actual "physical possession is required to be obtained or merely
taking the possession specified therein would serve the purpose.
F Having regard to the provision of the said Act, we are of the opinion
that the decisions cited by the learned Solicitor General have no application
in the instant case.

A decision, as is well-known, is an authority for which it is decided and
G not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well-settled that a little
difference in facts or addition!!-1 facts .may make a lot of difference in the
precedential value of a decision. [See Smt. Ram Rakhi v. Union of India and
Ors., AIR (2002) Delhi 458, Delhi Administration (NCT ofDelhi) v. Manoharlal,
AIR (2002) SC 3088, Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Mis.
Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr., JT (2002) l SC 482 and Dr. Nalini Mahajan
H etc. v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Ors., [2002] 257 ITR 123.

'
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY 1·. PALIT ANA S.UGAR MILL PVT LTD_ [M.8. SHAH. J] 541

For the aforementioned reasons, \Ve are in agree1nent with the findings of the A
High Court.

Before parting with the case. \Ve 1nay notice that Mr. Tanna appearing
on behalfofthe South Gujarat University in C.A. No.1540 of2002 submitted
that various other contentions had also been raised before the High Court.
We are not prepared to go into the said contentions inasmuch assuming the B
same to be correct, the remedy of the appellants would lie in filing appropriate
application for review before the High Court. Incidentally, we may notice that
even in the special leave petition no substantial question of law in this behalf
has been raised nor any affidavit has been affirmed by the learned advocate
who had appeared before the High Court or by any officer of the appellant C
who was present in court that certain other submissions \Vere made before
the High Court which were not taken into consideration .. In State of
Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., AIR (1982) SC 1249, this
Court observed :-

"When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the D
concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared
.· for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the
arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri
Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any
such concession and invited us to peruse the written submission
made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch E
into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply
not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters
of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt.
Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be
treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Atkinson F
in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR (1926) PC 136). We are bound
to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as
to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the
Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and
other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something
was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word G

- on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as
to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the
court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict
such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that
the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the
minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges, who
have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard
to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per lord
Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR ( 1917) PC 30. That
is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken,
B the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile
and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases
to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was
made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross
injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the
c concession as recorded in the judgment."

For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in these appeals
which are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T.. Appeals dismissed.

.._