THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus BHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 12-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
777 
was not binding and could not be enforced. Whatever 
be the merits of such a contention, it obviously cannot 
be raised in an application made under the provisions 
of article 32 of the 
Constitution. 
The 
forum 
for 
investigating such allegations is elsewhere. 
The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
BHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER. 
I MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS 
and VENKATARAMA AvYAR JJ.] 
Constitution 
of India, 
Arts. 19(1) (f), 31(2)-Bombay Land 
Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIll of 1948), ss. 5(1) and 
6(4) (a) as amended by Bombay Act II of 1950 and Bombay Act 
XXXIX of 1950-Whether ultra vires the 
Cons1;1e<tion-Requisi-
tion of premises under s. 4(3) of the 
Act-Validity-Onus-Statute 
-
l-F hether must contain in express terms the 
publtc purpose-
I<cqurstiiu,, af 1u·orn1,,-Validity. 
Sections 5(1) and 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 
194/i (Bombay Act XXX!II of 
19t8) as amended are not 
ultra 
vr;·.J Arts. 19( I) (f), and 31 (2) of the Constitution. 
Article 19(1) (£) read with clause (5) postulates the existence 
of property which can be enjoyed and over which rights can be 
exercised because 
otherwise the reasonable 
restrictions contem-
plated by clause (5) cannot be brought 
into play. In ·the present 
case the right to occupy the premises has gone, as also the right to 
transfer, assign, let or sub-let. 
What is left is merely the husk of 
title in the lease-hold. 
Art. 19(1) (£), therefore, is not attracted. 
The Bombay Larid Requisition Act, 1948, provides for com-
pensation in 
s. 8 and the requisitions were 
made for 
a public 
purpese. Therefore, the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitu-
tion are complied with . 
. A statute is_ not in~~l!d for . the reason that the purpose 
for 
which prol":r'Y is reqmslt!oned 1s not stated in express terms 
in 
the statute 1:self provided from the whole tenor and 
intendment 
.. , 
of the Act it can_ be gathered that the property is acquired either 
for th_c: p.irpose ot the State or for any public pnrpose and that the 
mtentlo1' was to benefit the community at large. 
1954 
Seth Gopal Das 
Moh/a 
v. 
Union of India. 
and Anolhtr 
Mahtifan C. ]. 
1954 
October 12. 
I95f 
The State ef 
Bern.hoy 
v. 
Bhanji Munji 
anf/ Anothtr 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f1955] 
When prima facie an order complies with the provisions 
of 
the statute and is not illegal the onus 
lies 
on the 
person 
who 
challenges the validity of the order to sho\v that it is illegal. 
Under the 
Act only premises-to v.·hich a special meaning is 
given natncly pre1nises which were "let" or "intended to be let" 
-within the meaning of s. 4(3) can be 
requisitioned and 
the 
Government requisitioned 
the premises in exercise of the 
po\vers 
under the Act, the onus rested on the person \Vho alleged that the 
premises in this case were not pre1njses within 
the 
n1ean1ng of 
the definition and could not be requisitioned. 
The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose ((1954] S.C.R. 
587), Dwarkadas Shrinivas of 
Bombay v. The Sholapur Spinning 
and Weaving Co. Ltd. l• Others ([1954J S.C.R. 674), A. K. Gopalan 
v. The State of Madras ([1950] S.C.R. 88). The State of llihar v. 
Maharnjadhiraja 
Sir 
Kameshwor 
Singh of Darbhanga ([1952] 
S.C.R. 889) and Biswabhusan Naik v. The 
State of Orissa ([1955J 
I S.C.R. 92) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
No. 145 of 1952. 
Appeal 
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India 
from 
t'.1e 
Judgment 
and 
Order, 
dated 21st 
February, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal 
No. 8 of 1952 arising out of Miscellaneous Application 
No. 118 of 1951. 
M. 
C. 
Setalvad, 
Attorney-General 
of 
India, 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of Tnd;,, (J.l. J.I. Sccr-
vai, P. A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the 
appellant. 
B. Sen, N. A. Palkhitoala and I. N. 
Shroff for the 
respondents. 
1954. October 12. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J .-This judgment will govern 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 146 and 147 of 1952 as well. We will first deal 
. with the questions that are coinmnn to them all. They 
arise out of three petitions made in the: Bombay High 
Court for writs of mandamus under article 226 of the 
Constitution. The writs have been gra.nted 
and 
the 
State of Bombay appeals. 
The facts are these. The 
Governor 
oi 
Boxnbay, 
acting throug

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