Reservation lapsing under Section 20(2) of the TP Act is absolute and survives subsequent plan revisions.

The petitioner is the owner of land (approx. 2200 sq. mtrs.) which was originally reserved for 'Open Space and Garden' in the final development plan sanctioned on 31.01.1986

The predecessor-in-title issued a statutory notice under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("the Act") on 01.04.1996, calling upon authorities to acquire the land

Despite the lapse of six months from the notice, the land was not acquired.

Subsequently, the authorities revised the development plan multiple times (2004 and 2019), designating the land for various purposes

The petitioner purchased the land in 2015 and issued a fresh notice in 2020 as a precaution, seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed

The court applied Section 20 and Section 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Section 20(2) creates a "deeming fiction" where the designation of land lapses if not acquired within six months of a notice served after a ten-year reservation period

The court relied on the landmark precedent Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P.) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111, which established that the right acquired by a landowner under Section 20(2) cannot be taken away by a revised plan under Section 21

It also followed Gujarat Housing Board v. State of Gujarat (2018) 25809 GUJ C, affirming that the deeming fiction of lapsing is not diluted by subsequent re-reservation in a revised plan

The court reasoned that Section 20(2) is a beneficent provision intended to protect the rights of landowners against indefinite freezing of land user

It determined that once the predecessor-in-title issued the notice in 1996 and the six-month period lapsed without acquisition, a legal fiction was created, and the reservation was emancipated

The court rejected the respondent's argument that a subsequent purchaser must wait for a new ten-year period, stating that a lapsed designation does not revive simply because ownership changes hands; the law does not require the new owner to repeat the statutory process

Furthermore, applying the Bhavnagar University principle, the court held that Section 21 (revision of plans) only covers procedural aspects and cannot extinguish the substantive right of "de-freezing" already accrued to the owner

The court allowed the petition, declaring the subject land free from reservation. The respondents were directed to treat the land as free from any designation or reservation