LexGRAHAK SANSTHA MANCH AND ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GRAHAK SANSTHA MANCH AND ETC. ETC. v. ...__ ~ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA APRIL 27, 1994 B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, 0. J.S. VERMA, P.B. SAWANT, S.C. AGRAWAL AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] • Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948-Sections 1 & 6-Act being not a • c rent control legislation-Purpose of a requisition order may be permanent- Requisition intended to be only a temporary a"angement-Requisition may be continued only for a period of time-Continuance of order of requisition for 30 years-Unreasonable-Desirability and feasibility of providing alternate accommodation to allottee~ of requisitioned premises-ft is for State Govern- ment to consider. D Premises were requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 for the purposes of residential use and also for commercial use more than 45 years back. The Petitioners, an association of cooperative societies running fair price ration shops in requisitioned premises, were E served with a notice by the State Government calling upon them to vacate the premises so that the premises might be de-requisitioned. The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Govern· ment not to evict them from the requisitioned premises and also for reconsideration of the judgment in H.D. Vora's case. F The petitioners submitted that requisitioning was resorted to in conditions of emergency and there had been an acute shortage of accom- modation in the then Bombay State, and therefore, in such a situation.the ' continuance of requisition orders could not be held to be bad in law, nor could the court specify that requisitions could not continue beyond a G particular number of years; that no provision of the Constitution made invalid a law ofrequisitioning under which property could be requisitioned for an indefinite period and the mere fact that requisitioning for a long period might amount, in substance to acquisition did not impair the validity of a provision which continued the requisition for an indefinite period; that there was no reason why the requisition of the premises ~ "' H occupied by the writ petitioners cooperative societies should not be con· 746 ' GRAHAKSANSTIIAMANCH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 747 tinned while they served the public purpose of supplying food grains and A the like at fair price under the Public Distribution Scheme and the need for requisitioning arising out of scarcity of accommodation in Bombay continued; that the provisions for requisitioning of premises under the Act had been made to control rents and the said Act was meant to cure the mischief of scarcity of accommodation and it could not be said to be finite in time; that 'land' and premises were separately defined for the purposes of the Act so that there was no compulsion upon the State Government to release from requisitioning 'premises', namely, any building or part of a building let or intended to be let and that, insofar as premises were concerned, requisitioning was not intended to be a temporary arrange- ment. B c The respondents submitted that the purpose of requisitioning could be of permanent nature but not the period and it was inherent in the concept of requisitioning that possession and user was limited in duration; that in the Tenth Report of the Law Commission of India on Acquisition and Requisitioning of Land, the Law Commission was of the view that the D power of requisitioning the property of a private owner was an extra ordinary power and could justifiably be invoked only when an emergency arose and the Law Commission recommended that the law of requisi- tioning should be embodied in a permanent code but should be brought into force by a notification only when such action was deemed necessary E and that property should not be kept under requisition for a period longer than live years. Dismissing the writ petitions, this court HELD : Per Majority (S.P. Bharucha, J. for himself and the M.N. F Venkatachaliah, CJ. J.S. Verma, S.C.Agrawal). 1.1. The Bombay Land Requisition Act as originally enacted, em- powered the State Government to require landlords to let out premises. The provisions in that regard were deleted. Therefore, the Act as it stands is not a rent control legislation. That the said Act as originally enacted had G contemplated both the requisitioning of premises and compulsory letting out thereof indicates the legislative intent that whereas letting out was intended to be only a pern1anent arrange
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.