NANUBHAI NAGARJI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges an order of requisition dated 2 May 1967 passed by the Collector of Bulsar requisitioning a building known as Hari Nivas situate on Dharampur Tithal Cross Road in the city of Bulsar. The said building was newly constructed by the landlord and it was ready for occupation on 1st March 1967. Since the building was vacant by reason of it being newly erected the landlord should have given intimation of the vacancy to the State Government within seven days of the building becoming available for occupation but the landlord admittedly did not give such intimation to the State Government and instead let out the ground floor of the said building to Dr. P. K. Nargund and the first floor to the petitioner. The letting took place on 6th March 1967 and the petitioner immediately entered into possession of the first floor of the building as a tenant. It appears that the Collector thereafter came to know that the said building had been let out by the landlord to the petitioner and Dr. P. K. Nargund without giving intimation of vacancy to the State Government and he therefore after making such inquiry as he thought fit made an order of requisition dated 2nd May 1967 under sec. 6 subsec. (4) clause (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 requisitioning the said building for a public purpose namely for letting out to a Government Officer. There was a declaration in the order of requisition to the effect that the said building was vacant on 5th March 1967. The Collector also made another order on the same day namely 2 May 1967 stating that Dr. P. K. Nargund and the petitioner were in unauthorised occupation of the ground floor and first floor respectively of the said building and directing them to vacate the said building within seven days from the receipt of the order and to hand over possession thereof to the Mamlatdar Bulsar. THIS order for handing over possession was followed by another order dated 18th May 1967 made by the Collector allotting the said building to Mr. V. B. Buch Assistant Collector Bulsar. The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order of requisition dated 2nd May 1967 as also of the consequential order of allotment dated 18th May 1967.

(2.) THE second ground on which the petitioner assailed the order of requisition was that at the date when the order of requisition was made the said building was not vacant and the Collector had therefore no power to requisition the same under sec. 6 sub-sec. (4) clause (a). This argument was based on the hypothesis that the Government can requisition premises under sec. 6 sub-sec. (4) clause (a) only if the premises are vacant at the date when the order of requisition is made. But this hypothesis is plainly incorrect. Sec. 6 sub-sec. (4) clause (a) nowhere states that the premises shall be liable to be requisitioned under that provision only if they are vacant at the date of the order of requisition. THE scheme of sec. 6 seems to be that if any premises are vacant or have become vacant the landlord is required to give intimation of vacancy to the Government in the prescribed form within the specified time so that the Government can requisition the premises for a public purpose if it wants to do so. This is ensured by providing that the landlord shall not without the permission of the Government let or occupy the premises or permit them to be occupied before giving the requisite intimation and for a period of one month from the date on which the intimation is received by the Government. THE object of this provision clearly is that the Government should have a period of one month within which to decide whether or not to requisition the premises for a public purpose. But this does not mean that if the landlord does not give intimation of vacancy to the Government and either occupies the premises or lets them out to a tenant the Government would be deprived of the power to requisition the premises. Even if the intimation of vacancy is not given by the landlord in breach of the statutory duty cast upon him the Government can still proceed to requisition the premises. THE only requirement then would be that the Government must make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order that the premises were vacant or had become vacant. When the Government requisitions the premises in such a case the requisition is made because the premises were vacant or had become vacant. THE object of the section clearly is that the premises when they become vacant should be available to the Government to requisition for a public purpose and this object would be frustrated if the view were taken that the Government cannot requisition the premises if the landlord does not give intimation of vacancy to the Government and either occupies or lets out the premises to a tenant in breach of the statutory duty laid upon him. That would be putting a premium on infraction of statutory duty and render the power of requisition ineffectual and futile. THE correct view is and this view is not only consistent with the language of the section but also effectuates the object and purpose of the enactment of the section that even where the landlord does not give intimation of vacancy to the Government and either occupies the premises or lets them out to a tenant the Government can still requisition the premises for a public purpose the only requirement being that the Government must make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order that the premises were vacant or had become vacant. It is clear on a plain reading of the language of sec. 6 sub-sec. (4) clause (a) in the light of the object of enactment of the section that the power conferred on the Government to requisition the premises under the section is not conditioned by the requirement that the premises must be vacant at the date of the order of requisition. Here in the present case the building which is requisitioned was admittedly vacant on 5th March 1967 by reason of its being newly erected but the landlord did not give intimation of vacancy to the Government and instead let it out to the petitioner and Dr. P. K. Nargund in breach of the statutory duty laid upon him under sec. 6 sub-sec. (3). This did not deprive the Government of the power to requisition the premises under sec. 6 sub-sec. (4) clause (a) and the challenge to the order of requisition on this ground must therefore fail.