MUSHTAQ AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that the Estate Officer be directed to forthwith de-requisition the remaining portions of the property known as York Hotel Building requisitioned in the year 1942 and may further be restrained from delivering possession of the de-requisitioned portions to respondent No. 3 or any other person and respondent No. 3 may be restrained from taking possession of the said property. Respondents impleaded in the petition are Union of India and Estate. Officer. Directorate of Estates, as respondents 1 and 2, Shri Ram Pershad. respondent No. 3 as also eleven other persons as respondents 4 to 14 who are stated to be actually in occupation of the property sought to be de-requisitioned.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the property known as York Hotel Building situated in Block 'K'. Connaught Circus, New Delhi, comprising old Municipal Numbers 8791 to 8805. By orders dated October 19, 1942 and October 31, 1942 this building with its first and second floors in terms of the petition complete with all appurtenances situated at Connaught Circus. New Delhi was requisitioned by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. At the time of reauisition the whole property belonged to one Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala, the father of the present petitioner who before his death gifted away this property to the petitioner. The property was requisitioned in 1942 for defence purposes and after the conclusion of the War, the Defence Department handed it over to the Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates. Government of India. During this period, Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala. while he was alive, made efforts to have the property released from reauisition but with no apparent success. On June 3, 1947, in his lifetime, he entered into an agreement in writing with respondent No. 3 to lease out the property mentioned in the said agreement to him, on its being de-requisitioned. By order dated August 23, 1965, the Competent Authority appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (XXX of 1952) (hereafter called "the Act") released a part of the reauisitioned property consisting of flat Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26 on the first floor and numbers 28 and 32 on the second floor. By another order dated November 6/8, 1965, the said Authority further de-requisitioned flat No. 25 on the first floor of this Building. By yet another order dated August 17. 1966 it also de-requisitioned flat No. 27 on the first floor of this Building. The remaining portions of the property, continued to be under reauisition. In the year 1962, respondent No. 3, on the basis of the agreement to lease, entered into by him with Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala, filed a suit against the latter in Civil Court and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing him to hand over possession of the property mentioned in the agreement

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in preliminary submission (ii), it was stated that the Government had already taken a decision to de-requisition the portion of the property now under reauisition occupied by the York Restaurant but "this decision could not be acted upon as a dispute was raised bv the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and respondent Nos. 4 to 9, each claiming the possession of the property on de-requisition" and also because one of the occupants of the property. Manohar Bakery, had filed a writ petition and had obtained a stay order from the High Court. On merits it was urged in preliminary submissions (iii) and (iv) that according to sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, the Competent Authority was to make an inquiry and to restore possession of the de-requisitioned premises to a person from whom possession was taken and as in the instant case the possession had been taken at the time of requisition from one Nechal Singh and the said Nechal Singh was not traceable, it became necessary to make an inquiry for deciding the person to whom possession of the property should be delivered on de- requisition. In regard to the decision of the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. it was stated that after the Central Government decided to de-requisition the property, the petitioner was called upon to show cause if he had any objection to the possession of the premises being handed over to respondent No. 3 who claimed the same on the basis of a judgment and decree dated June 14, 1968 passed by the Civil Court in his favour. To this the petitioner submitted his reply and the matter was examined in detail and it was pointed out to him that his objection for de- requisition in favour of respondent No. 3 was not tenable.