LexH.D. VORA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. \ . H.D. VORA v. ' ,1 STATE OF MAHARASflTRA & ORS. '• Februaj'y 22,. 1984 . . .· .... ( [ P.N': BHAGWATI AND SABYASACHI MmcHARJI, JJ.) , !)--~..,;.- Coi1~fifution'ojlndia 1950. Artic/eJl (2) &·Seventh SChedtile, List Ill f,lltrY ~2. .• Acquisition and 'requisition of proPerty-Dijferences-Wh.fll a1e. ·. Power · character .... ' of r"equi.~itioh!.___WJ,;,, e.l.:erf'i.\'rlb!C'-Fo~· a' public purpose ·of trat1Jito1;y ' ,__.._ iJ01nbaY land R_eq:tisition. Act 194? sect/on.6(_4)(a)-'-Requis_ition Of resid~ntial /lat-Whether ~:ould conti.'1;1e'for a'I indefinite peririd.....:.-Tcnant payi~g rent (11rectfv ./o landlord-Tenant whether hecoi11e4 direct tenant of. lan.d/ord-Whether feqtdsllion A._.;..order should set out explicitly lhe public-purpoSe . . \' Prl:ictice and Procedure:. Writ Peition.::....Challenging Order of re-i}Uis1tio11 offiai after a l~pse of thii-ty.,yearS-Whether maintainable.·. . . , ' '-' The appellant applied to.the Accomnlodation Depaitrnent of the Staie- Govern~ n1ent for allotment of a flai. -The Sta"te Governmentt urned down. the request but. · iequisitioned the flat bYa~ order dated 9th April: 195:1, under cl~use (a) ~·r ;ub~section ( 4) ·of section 6 of the Bombay L~nci Requisition. Act, 19~8: Thi~ ordef of requ~si~ .tion: did not set out the pu'blic. purpose· for which the flat was_ reQuiSitiont!d. The_ A"lsistant Controller of·Acconimo·datiori by an Order dated 25th April, 1951 allotted . . . ' / ' . . the requisitiori~d flat to the apPellant who e;ntered into Occupation and paid rent to the land!ady from time "to tim~_ but as he w.?s irregular and- ·comfnitted1 s_evcral \ defaults the Controller .of AccoinmodatiOTI sought. to terminate the atiotment. / . · ·._: . , The 3rd re~p~ndent, on 3d!h May, }973 purchased .the: .buQding. in which the ~-equ1sition'ed "flat was situated, and re~uested thC State' Govcr~M\nt '16 de-:rcquisi- . · ' ' . ' .. . . ' . . .! ' . .. A . B ' ' • c D .\ ' ' F ' -G ' ) H . ' , . • 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 S.C.R. ' • A · ( tion .the ftat, as the aHotinent of tfie" fiat in favour of the appellant could not be s~id ta bC for a• .PubliC purpose~ .. The State Govornn1enf did ·not pay any heed t~ this . request. B -The 3rd respondent, thereupon filed a \Vrit Petition in the Hjgh Court chaUengii:ig the validity of the order or .requisition, Contending that it. could not survfyf _for such a long·periOct 9.f time ahd that the Stilte Go~~rnment Was lherefore1' bpund t.o de-requisition the flat. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition arid directed the State Goveh1mcnt and the Controller of Accon1modation to de-r0Qui1i- ·rion the flat, take steps. to evict the appellant, ilnd hand oYer vac:lnt pos!cssion. In ap1~eal this ca·urt, it was contended inter alia on behalf of the appe1lant-- ·,oonant. that even if the order of requisition was inYalid as having been made foi;:a pur- pose· Other thf_ln a public purpose, the "3rd.respondent was not cntillcd to challen1e the order of requisition after a lapse of ove~· 30 years and that the W~it Petition should. · haVc ·been dismissed by the Hig~ Court. '· Distnissing the Appeal, - ... - . 1-.IELD ;, l. The order .Qf rt<l-uisitioti c?ven if it was valid when made, ceased to . ' ·• be v<ilid and effective after expiration of a reasonable p~riod of ti1:11e· What period of ...> E F G H time ·must be _regarded as -reasonable for the continuahce of an order-of tiofl depends on the htcts alld circu1nstances ot each case. [700 H] roquisi- In the inStant case, the or.der of requisition was made as far back as 9th April 1951 a-nd·cvcn if it was made for ):iousing a homeless pefson,,· arid .. the appel- lant at that tin1e;.fc!I \Vi thin that category, if cannot be alloVired to 'continue. for such an inordin:~tcly long: pcrio.d as thirty years. [700 G] . .-- ""' '· 2. Requisitioning 1nust be made for a public purpo11e • .11.nd 10 lona 'aa iktr• is a public purpose for ~hich an order of rcquisitiOn is made, it would b1 vaiid irresp.cciive of whether such public purpose is recited in the o;der of fequisition or not. But if the order is cha!lang"d• the State Goyernment would. have to aati1fy the Court by placing the ·necessary.facts. sho":ing tbti pubic P\l}pose for which thr: erder of requi~ition. was 1nadc. [69'8 B,G] 3. There is a basic and· funda1ncntal distinction reco&nised by law betw_eea requisition and acquisit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.