LAWS(GJH)-1972-12-8

BHAISHANKER DAMODAR BHATT DR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 05, 1972
BHAISHANKER DAMODAR BHATT Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Doctor had challenged in this petition the order At Annexure 4 by which his building known as Kaushik Building at Baroda was requisitioned on May 21 1960 for housing of a State servant and orders at Annexures C and D dated August 10 1970 and March 29 1971 by which the petitioners request for releasing his premises was rejected by the authorities. The petitioner practised as a doctor at Savli and he had intention to settle at Baroda after retirement. He therefore purchased the suit property in 1958 and rebuilt it. It is now Kaushik Building which has three storeys. On the groundfloor there are two rooms and a kitchen. Same place in on the first floor. The second floor has the same area but there are four rooms. Two rooms on the second floor are with a tenant and the other two rooms are in the possession of the petitioner. The groundfloor was with daughter Jaya and her husband and when Jaya vacated the other daughter Kailas and her husband have come in 1971. When the first floor became vacant in 1960 it was requisitioned by the order at Annexure A dated May 21 1960 for the public purpose of housing a State servant. The premises were thereafter being allotted from time to time to various Government servants and as stated in the affidavit-in-reply five officers at different times became allottees. As the petitioner was aging he wanted to get these premises and he needed them for his occupation and for the education of his children. When the vacancy arose in April 1970 the petitioner made an application requesting the authorities to allow him personally to occupy the first floor when the allottee servant had left. This application of the petitioner dated April 6 1970 was rejected by the Collector on August 10 1970 holding that the request to release requisitioned premises could not be accepted. Even the last officer who was thereafter allotted these premises by the allotment order of August 14 1910 wrote a letter to the Collector on September 17 1970 that he was allotted Government quarters and he would vacate the requisitioned premises. The petitioner accordingly made another application on September 21 1970 for having this portion for his personal occupation. Even on this occasion the petitioners request was rejected by the Collector by the order at Annexure D of March 29 1971 on the ground that his request for releasing the requisitioned premises was not a proper request. The petitioner therefore filed the present petition on April 6 1971 challenging the aforesaid order. Mr. Shah has raised two grounds in this petition:-

(2.) In Smt. Chanchalben v. State of Gujarat I.L.R. 1964 Guj. 227 Division Bench consisting of Miabhoy J. (as he then was)and myself had again considered this question in the light of the aforesaid decision in Nanjis case. At page 243 Miabhoy J. speaking for the Division Bench in terms pointed out that such purpose of housing State Government servants was a public purpose. If the matter was regarded only from the point of view of the Government servants the purpose of the acquisition would be to advance the interest of the Government servants. However it is well known that no Government can carry on their administration efficiently by merely giving salary to their servants. The Government should also assure to their servants that on their transfer to a place they would be provided with reasonable accommodation either immediately or within a reasonable period of time. To ensure such accommodation for their servants it is obvious that the Government must have at their disposal premises which they could make available to their servants. It is easy to see that the efficiency of the Government service would suffer if the servants have no accommodation on their transfer or no reasonable prospect of such accommodation. If the Government did not make such accommodation available their servants would have to compete in the open market for the same. If the Government servants were left to compete in the general market for obtaining accommodation it is easy to see that they would not be able to compete with the other members of the community specially in a city like Ahmedabad in the hard times through which all are passing in modern times. Therefore the question of giving accommodation to Government servants is vitally and directly concerned with the question of the efficiency of Government service and that being so it was held that requisitioning of premises for accommodating Government servants was essential and necessary to maintain efficiency in Government service and therefore the impugned order of requisition came within the purview of the expression public purpose.

(3.) Mr. Shah however vehemently argued that to interpret the word `public purpose stated in the impugned order in such a manner so as to make these premises always available to the Government for being allotted to different servants from time to time and the requisition would be in fact acquisition. So long as the petitioners title remained in these premises they were not requisitioned at all.