P.R. GAJAPATHY NAIDU AND ORS. Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are owners of a cocoanut garden bearing R.S.No. 3939 of Tondiarpet of an extent of 5 cawnies 15 grounds 354 square feet. The Collector of Madras by an order dated 3rd March, 1944, acting under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules requisitioned the said cocoanut garden for securing the efficient prosecution of the war. Subsequently after the World War was over the petitioners had been repeatedly requesting the respondents herein for release of the cocoanut garden and the respondents not having released the said property they have filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to release to the petitioners the lands in R.S.No. 3939 in Tondiarpet, Madras, measuring 135 grounds and 354 square feet from requisition.

(2.) I have already referred to the fact that the order of the Collector dated 3rd March, 1944, was passed under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. Sub-rule (1) of that rule is as follows:

(3.) This Act in turn was replaced by the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act XXX of 1952) Section 24 of this Act repealed the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, Central Act XVII of 1947. But Sub-section (2) of this section provided that any property which immediately before such repeal was subject to the requisition under the provisions of the said Act shall on the commencement of this Act be deemed to be property requisitioned under Section 3 of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. Section 6 of this Act said that the Central Government may at any time release from requisition any property requisitioned under this Act and shall as far as possible restore the property in as good a condition as it was when possession thereof was taken, subject only to changes caused by reasonable wear and tear and irresitible force. The effect of all these provisions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Kanwar, 1962 3 SCR 313 . The Supreme Court, on a consideration of all these provisions came to the conclusion that once the property was requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules for a particular purpose the power conferred on the Central Government under Central Act XVII of 1947 to use the land in such a manner as may appear to the Central Government to be expedient has to be exercised only with reference to the original purpose for which the land as acquired under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, and it has no wider power of use than what was contemplated by the Defence of India Rules and the purpose for which the property itself was requisitioned. This is what the Supreme Court had to say in this behalf: