RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 10-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

).-. 
, 
A 
RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. 
),-. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
-
FEBRUARY 10, 1997 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971: Section 23. 
...... 
"t' 
Immovable property-Requisitioning of-Order requisitioning land is-
c sued for U.P. ·State Handloom and Powerloom Finance and Development 
Corporation. Ltd. to enable it to nm a handloom showroom for promoting 
sale of handloom products manufactured by weavers working in rnral 
areas-Held: Requisitioning power could be exercised only in emergent situa-
tions for the purposes set out in S.23--0rder of requisitioning could be issued 
D 
if it was found that but for such order the community would be deprived of 
supplies and services essential for its lif e---/n the circumstances of the case, 
).. 
order ultra vires S.23. 
. lmmovable property--Requisitioning of-Order requisitioning land is-
'sued for U.P. State Handloom and Powerloom Finance Development Car-
E poration Ltd. for opening handloom showroom--Held.· Could not be resorted 
to for any permanent public purpose but must be of limited duration com-
mensurate with continuance of the emergent situation-After a passage of 
more than two decades such indefinite requisitioning was contrary to the 
scheme of S.23-lmmovable property-Requisitioning of-Order requisi-
tioning land issued in 1976-Such order continued for more than two decades 
... 
F when the Act ceased to operate and emergency withdrawn-Held: Such order 
' 
amounted to acquisition by colourable exercise of power-Order had lost its 
efficacy and had become a dead letter-Administrative Law. 
Immovable property-Order requisitioning land-Challenge of--Eff ect 
of saving provision under S.1 (3 }--Held: Validity of the order could be 
' 
G examined by Court. 
The respondent requisitioned the land belonging to the appellants 
y 
by an order dated 29-10-1976 under Section 23 of the Defence and Internal 
Security of India Act, 1971. The requisition order merely mentioned that 
H it was necessary and expedient to requisition the appellants' property for 
1056 
... , 
'f 
...: 
.i 
} 
'f 
R.K. GUPTAv. STATE 
1057 
· maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. A 
The requisition order was issued with a view to seeing that the' State 
Handloom and Powerloom Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. 
could construct shops and showrooms in the land in question for exhibit· 
ing its handloom products which were manufactured by handloom 
weavers. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court chat-
. B 
lenging the aforesaid requisition order, which was dismissed. Hence this 
appeal • 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Act itself was 
a temporary Statute having limited existence being enacted during emer-
gency, both external and internal; that the Act had already ceased to c 
operate since long; that the purpose for which the requisition was resorted 
to was dehors the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, as providing a 
showroom for exhibiting the wares manufactured by the weavers could not 
have any nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to 
the life of the community; that the purpose of requisition being of a D 
permanent nature could not have been made the subject matttr of an order 
of requisition under Section 23 of the Act; that sirice the requisition order 
was as old as of 1976 such indefinite requisition of premises was contrary 
to the very scheme of Section 2'.3 of the Act; that the appellants had locus 
standi to challenge the order of requisition when they were having unex-
pired lease period; and that even though the lands were Nazul lands, since E 
the leases were not legally terminated, the leasehold interest of the appel-
Iants remained intact. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the requisition 
order was within the four corners of the Act; that requisition co~ld be 
F 
made for subserving even a permanent purpose; that the lands under 
requisition were Nazul lands and were leased to the appellants; that the 
period of lease had expired; that since no renewal of the lease was effected 
by the appellants the ownership of the lands under requisition stood 
. reverted to the respondents; that the requisition order was passed during G 
the currency of proclamation of emergency, both external and internal, and 
it sought its efficacy through the parent Act which had sh1ce !ong expir~d; 
and that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.