LexMADAN GOPAL AGARWAL versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
610 MADAN GOPAL AGARWAL v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS October 10, 1972 A [A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, M. H. BEG ANDS. N:DW!VEm, JJ.] B U.P. (Temporory) Accommodation Requisition Act 1947, S.3-0rder of requisition 1nade lvithout hearing to owner occupant' whether valid. 1)\e appellal!t's house in Allahabad was let out to the State Govern- ment for a penod of five years. Soon after the expiry of the period of lease in September 1969 the District Magistrate passed an order under s.3 ~f t.he U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation. Requisition Act 1947 ·rcquisi- ttonmg the house to provide accommodation to a public serva:nt. The app<:llant was asked to hand over possession of the house within 24 hours after the expiry of 15 days from the date of the service of the order on him. He challenged the order in a petition under Art. 226 of the Con· ti- tution on the ground that tho order was issued without issui:ng any notice to him and without giving him a hearing. The High Court dismi&5ed the petition taking the view that since the house was taken away from the appellant's use for a temporary period only he did not stand deprived of his property, and, therefore a detailed procedure wa' not :necessary. The appeUant filed an appeal in this Court by special kave. Allowing the appeal, HELD : Although s,3 of the Act does not contain an expre" provision c J) for notice and hearing before the making of the requisitioni;~g order, such E a provision is to be read there by necessary implication. The object of the provision is to requisition nn ifumovable ptopcrty. Requisitioning of the property deprives the owner of the property of the right to hold and enjoy the property as he likes. The right to hold and enjoy the property is a cherished right. It is difficult to assume that tho legislature would have intended to deprive him of his cheri,hed right without noricc and hearing. [6!3CJ Under the main .part of s,3, the District Magistrate, after making up his mind as to the existencr, of a. public purpose to warrant the making of an order of requl,ition, has to decide whether, in view of that public purpo:-.e, he has to requisition a particular accommodatio,D. He has to con~idr.r the suitability of the accommodation in the light of its location, size and com~ pcnsation payable. These arc objective factors, and, there is no reason w,by the District Magistrate should not hear the owner of the accommoda- tion proposed to be requi'"itioned on these matters. Under the first pro- viso to the S'>..,ction, the District Magi~tratc has to consider whether the building or part of a building is used for religious worship. Under the second proviso the District Magistrate is to see whether suitable alternative accommodation ii available for the pe'rson in actual possession of the pro- perty. These matters cannot be fairly and satisfactorily determined with- out. giving a hearing to the owner or the person in occupation of the pro- perty. [613 H-61-4 GI It is nece&sary to l>oar in mind that the Act d"".s not provide .for any appeal or revision from the order of the D1str1ct Mag1~trate under s.3. The J;Jistrict Magistrate is constituted the plenary authority. It s,eems reason- F H n c D E F G H M. G. AGARWAL v. DIST, MAGISTRATE (Dwivedi, J.) 611 able to think that the legislatuv~ intended that an order under s.3 should be made after notice and hearing, so that no unfairness is done to any- one. An elaborate proc~dure is not necessary. The barest minimum, how- ever is a fair hearing. Notice ~hould be given to the person who will be affected by the order of requisition asking him to show cause why his accommodation should not be requisitioned. He should be given reason- able time to file his reply to the notice. T11> so~ cases it may :,e neces• sary to give him an opportunity of producing his oral .and documentary evidence. [615BJ The contention that since an order under s.3 is administrative it is not necessary to hear th-o affected party could not be aqcepted. This Court, in Kraipak held that rules of 11>atural justice will apply to adminis- trative enquiries. The decisions in Doud Ahmad and K. R. Errv hold that in an enactment which deprives a petson of his property, there is neces· sarily implied the pre-requisite of a hearing. [617FJ The order of requisition in the present case having been made without a hearing must be held to be illegal. A. K. Kraipak and othe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.