SETH MUNNA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 17, 1968, the Collector of Delhi, acting as Competent Authority under the Requisitioning are Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, issued anotice in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of section 3 calling upon Munna Lal petitioner to show cause as to why the property, 26, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi, be not requisitioned. In the notice it is inter aha stated that the property described in the Schedule hereto annexed is needed for a public purpose, viz. accommodating Government Officers/Offices being a "purpose of the Union,.....". Section 3 of the said Act requires that where the competent authority is of opinion that. any property is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose, being a purpose of the Union, and that the property should be requisitioneel, the competent authority shall call upon the owner or any other person who may be in possession of the property by notice in writing (specifying therein the purpose of the requisition) to show cause, within fifteen days of the date of the service of such notice on him why the property should not be requisitioned. Sub-section (2) of section 3 authorises the competent authority, if such authority is satisfied alter considering the cause, if any, shown by any person interested in the property or inpossession thereof that it is necessary or expedient to requisition the property, to requisition the same by order in writing. Certain properties are, by a proviso to section 3, excluded from the operation of the Act but it is not necessary to detail the same for the purposes of decision in this case. The power to requisition under section 3 can, therefore, be exercised if the property is needed "for any public purpose, being a purpose of the Union". Under section 5 of the said Act the requisitioned property can be used for such purposes only as may be mentioned in the notice of requisition, which in this case was-"accommodating Government Officers/officers being a purpose of the Union.."The petitioner filed objections to the proposed requisition which were disposed of by the competent authority by the order dated 13th August, 1968. In the said order it is inter alia stated-

(2.) The order has been challerged on various grounds but in the view that I am taking it is unnecessary to deal with all such grounds. One of the points raised in the petition is that the requisition is not for the purpose of the Union. Of course, in the petition the challenge has been made on the ground that housing of Officers/Offices of Delhi Administration is not a purpose of the Union. This objection seems to have been so couched in view of the use of the words 'Delhi Administration" in the order of the Collector dated 13th August, 1968, disposing of the objections of the petitioner. Counter affidavits were filed by respondents Mos. 3 and 4, namely, the Collector of Delhi (Competent Authority) and Shri K.N. Joshi. Officer-in-charge (Requisitioning). In the affidavits of Shri B..N. Tandon, Collector of Delhi (Competent Authority), it is inter alia stated that-

(3.) It is in this state of pleadings and the record that we have been called upon to decide as to whether or not the order of requisition is in conformity with the said Act. When dealing with such a matter a very close scrutiny lias to be brought to bear on the facts and law for the meagre safeguards available to the subjects cannot be diluted by conjuctural approach to the problem. Of course statutes represent the commonwill and a compromise arrived at the floor of the Legislature between competing interests and must, therefore, be interpreted in accordance with the recognised cinnos of interpretation. In so doing the Courts should not introduce their sympathy and say what ought to have been the law, but at the same time they must see whether or not the law has been fully complied with.