LexTHE STATE OF BOMBAY versus R. S. NANJI.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] 1956 getting them. cultivated through hired labour as con- n 'h P1' 4 templated in the definition of 'private lands'. We are Sin~~ a":<I a=he• clearly of opinion that the mortgage deed conferred v. no authority on the mortgagees to admit tenants so Musi .• of Munshi as to confer on them rights of occupancy. Nath P,.asad In the result, we must hold that the defendants of and other. · the .second party have failed to establish that they Venkatarama have any rights of occupancy over the suit lands, and Ayyar 1. that the plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to a decree in ejectment, with future mesne profits as claimed in the plaint. This appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower court is set aside, a'nd that of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr restored as against 2nd party defendants with costs throughout. The suit as agairist the first party defendants is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 1956 January 17 THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. R. S. NANJI. [S. R. DAS, ACTING c. J., BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA- DAS, B. P. SINHA AND JAFER !MAM JJ.) Bombay' Land Requisition Act, 1948 (BomblJ.y Act XXXIII of 1948), s. 6 (1)-Reguisition of premises by Bombay Government for housing an officer of State Road Transport Corporation-Whether for a public purpose-1/xpression 1p'llblic purpose'-Meaninq of-Road Transpo1't Corporation Act, 1950 (Parliament Act LXIV of 1950), s. 19( 1)( c)-Corporation empowered to provide living aooommodation for its employees-Premises requisitioned for Corporation-Whether for a public purpose. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of s. 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 the Government of Bom· bay requisitioned by an order dated 12th May 1952, the premises specified therein, fore. public purpose, namely, for housing an otlicer of the State Road Ti·ansport Corporation which is a public utility service. On a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent the requisition order was set asiae by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the requisition was not for a public purpose and therefore oould not have been made unaer s. 5 of the Requisition Aot. On appeal by apecial leave to the Supreme Court. • • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 19 Held (1) that in the circumstances of the present case the requisition was for a public purpose and the impugned order had been wrongly set aside by the High Court; (2) the phra.se 'public purpose' includes a purpose, that is, an object or aim, in which the gene1·al interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals is directly and ----"- • vitally concerned. It is impossible to define precisely the expres- sion 'public purpose'. In each case all the facts and circumstances will require to be closely examined to determine whether a public purpose has been established; (3) the Corporation has power to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including .............. . living accommoda- tion, places for rest and recreation and other amenities vide s. 19(1) (c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950; (4) the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act read as a whole lead to the conclusion that if the premises specified in the impugned order had been requisitioned for the Corporation, the requisition would have been for a public purpose; (5) in the present case the Corporation is a public utility con- cern and the general interest of the public is directly rmd vitally concerned with its activities and undertaking. Providing living ac- commodation for its employees is a statutory activity of the Corpora- tion and it is essential for it to provide such accommodation in order to ensure efficient working of the road transport system and there- fore the impugned order was validly passed under the Requisition Act. Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary oj State for India in Coun- ci! ((1914] L.R. 42 I.A. 44), The State of Bombay v. Bhonji Munji and Another ([1955) 1 S.C.R. 777) and The State of Bombay v. Ali Giilshan ([1955) 2 S.C.R. 867), referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1954. On Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 26th day of February 1953 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 120 of 1952 arising out of the Order dated the 11th day of Septem- ber, 1952 of the said High Court ·in its Or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.