1) Vacant land is a land which is used for everything but an agricultural purpose or for non agricultural purposes.
2) As per 17 Jan 1976, revised development plan, The reserved land for green belt now came under the Bombay town planning act of 1956. According to this, the reservation for agriculture use of the green belt was supposed to be removed and the use was changed to public housing. This means that those lands will become vacant.
3) Point to be noted is that the reservation of the greenbelt was supposed to end in February 1976, its a term of 10 years, after which the reservation should lapse. However, right before that, they introduced Bombay town planning act.
4) During this time the term vacant land wasn't coined. However, vacant lands mean that the government will have power over those land. so they can be used for anything that the government proposes.
5) 17th February 1976, Urban land ceiling act was introduced. Hence, here the vacant land term came into the picture. Once they become vacant then they have a particular ceiling. so basically, a person can't hold more than a specific amount of vacant land, in which the excess would go under the gov. Agricultural lands were exempted.
6) All these amendments results into a very mere compensation.
The act was repealed later on.
DP in the previous case was a draft plan of the DP. It finalizes after the gov sanctions it. It was just published by the corporation.
In DPs, they need to be re-sanctioned every 10 years. According to section 20 of sub clause 2 of Bombay town planning Act, 6 months prior of completion of 10 years, the reservation for the greenbelt for public housing, the land owners give a notice to the government that if they want to acquire the land and if not then the reservation will lapse and they can get their land again. If the land owner does not give this notice to the government then the reservation is renewed for another 10 years.
However, the court case the petitioners did give the notice to the government. And after many hearings Supreme court decided that the re-reservation could not happen and once it's lapsed it's lapsed.
Town planning act was amended in 1999.
another section was introduced, section 40 sub-clause 3 (JJ), according to this, certain land was reserved for utility and infrastructure like 15% roads, 5% for parks, for public services. for this purpose reserved land would be used. In case reserved is not sufficient, gov. can use lands which are not reserved.
Even in this case the respondent was in confusion as his land could be used for this purpose even though the previous reservation was lapsed. so basically his land could still be acquired. This seemed contrary to the section 22 which stated that the reservation lapsed could not be renewed.
However court held to this decision that, that section was for special reservation of land. And the new amendment was a new provision for overall land and it was for a public purpose. Hence, it could be applied to anything. However, the reserved land would be acquired first and if they fall short then non reserved land would be acquired. hence, the court declared that it is not contrary to section 22.
And here, reserved does not mean that it has already been acquired, its just put on hold for government for future developments. and it gets renewed or lapsed every 10 years. This was the main law around which the case was fought.