DEEP CHAND MITTAL Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The single question in this writ petition is whether the requisitioning authority is bound to release the property from re- quisitioning where the purpose for which property was requisitioned has partially, il not wholly, ceased to exist.

(2.) One Atma Ram was the owner of property No. B-4/12, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. On January 24, 1964, the Competent Authority under Section 3 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (the Act) issued notice to the owner that the property described in the schedule was needed for a public purpose, namely for "accommodating Public Office being a purpose of the Union" and to show cause why the said property should not be requisitioned. In the schedule to the notice the property was described as:

(3.) The owner showed cause but to no purpose. On March 12, 1964 the property was requisitioned "for accommodating Public Offices."