S HARNAM SINGH Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by S. Harnam Singh and his four sons, namely, Nirmal Singh, Ishar Singh, Harminder Singh and Jagjit Singh (petitioners 1 to 5), against the Lt. Governor, Delhi (respondent No. 1) and Shri B. N. Tandon, Collector, Delhi (respondent No. 2), praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing an order of respondent No. 1, dated 12-5-1967, and an order of respondent No. 2, dated 13-9-1966.

(2.) The petitioners constitute a Joint Hindu Family, and Harnam Singh (petiioner No. 1) is the 'Karta' of the said joint family. The petitioners are the owners of house property No. 9760/XVI/ IC/36, Rohtak Road. New Delhi. On 15-7- 1966. the petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were served with a notice (Annexure 1) by respondent No. 2 under Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act (No. 30 of 1952) requiring them to show cause why a portion of the said property described in the schedule to the notice should not be requisitioned for the public purpose, namely, of accommodating Government servants. The portion of the property sought to be requisitioned was described in the schedule to the notice as under:

(3.) On 25-7-1966. the petitioners sent a reply stating that they were the owners in occupation of the portion of the property sought to be requisitioned, while the other portions of the property were in the occupation of tenants. The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 and submitted certain documentary evidence in support of their contention. According to the petitioners, they brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 that one garage, a miani above it, and one room on the first floor of the house in question formed a workshop, store and office respectively of Messrs. Hindustan Electric and Manufacturing Company of which the petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor. They produced certain documents to show the existence and the functioning of the workshop, and contended that the portion which was wholly used for a commercial purpose could not be requisitioned for residential purpose. As for the other portion of the premises sought to be requisitioned, the petitioners stated in the writ petition that they brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 that they were occupying the same as residence for themselves and the members of their family, and that they had no other residential accommodation at Delhi. According to them, they produced documentary evidence before the Collector in support of their contention.