SARUP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is aimed against the order dated 4-3-1967, made by the Collector, Delhi, acting as Competent Authority under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as the Act) whereby the senior floor of House No. 528, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Delhi, was requisitioned for the purpose of accommodating a municipal school.

(2.) The Petitioner is a tenant, who alongwith his sub-tenants, has been in occupation of the aforesaid premises since several years past and has been paying nominal rent. The original owner of the property was one Shri Brij Krishna Chandiwala who, it is alleged, is a person of some importance in the political field and has been wanting to bring about the eviction of the petitioner and his sub-tenants by various means and devices. According 'to the petitioner, his attempts having been frustrated; by the adverse decisions of courts, he eventually succeeded in prevailing upon the authorities to requisition the properly for the purpose of accommodating a municipal school. In the petition the action of the respondents. Union of India (respondent No. 1), Collector of Delhi (respondent No. 2), Delhi Administration (respondent No. 3) and Shri Banarsi Dass Chandiwala Sewa Samarak Trust Society (respondent No. 4), has been assailed on various grounds including the ground of mala fides. The petitioner contends that the purpose for which the requisition has been made is mala fide and is neither a public purpose nor is it the purpose of the Union of India. The real object behind the order of requisition, it is alleged, is to help the landlord, Shri Brij Krishna Chandiwala so that after the property is once requisitioned and the petitioner and his sub-tenants are evicted therefrom, it will in due course, be de-requisitioned and sold by the landlord at a huge profit. He next contends that the premises consist of four tin sheds, two of which are only 7' x 7' each in area, while the other two are 8' x 10' each. There is no provision In the sheds for electricity, water-borne latrines or ventilation. The premises are therefore, according to the petitioner wholly unsuitable for accommodating a school. The premises are also said to be located in a Katra which is a wholesale market in. Kirana, chellies, tobacco and chemicals etc. which emit obnoxious fumes and smell. The use of such premises as a school for children is bound to be a health hazard. The petitioner further contends that he was not afforded proper opportunity and hearing by the Collector before the impugned order was passed. The last contention of the petitioner is that he and his sub-tenants have not been given any alternative accommodation which the Collector was bound to give under the provision of the Act.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by the Collector Shri B. N. Tandon who was competent authority under the Act, a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition has been raised on the ground that the petitioner's appeal against the order of requisition was still pending before the Lieutenant Governor and that the present petition had been filed with a view to by-pass the remedy provided under the Act. Another objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed from the petition the fact that the Lieut. Governor had rejected his application for stay of operation of the impugned order and his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against that order had also been dismissed by this Court and that possession of the premises had already been taken from him on 28-4-1967. The petitioner had also suppressed the fact that the second and third floors of the adjacent building viz. 511, Katra Ishwar Bhawan had already been requisitioned and a middle school for girls was being run in it by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is contended that these being material facts, their deliberate suppression by the petitioner dis-entitled him from invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.